Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lamargreen2 sentences2017App. at 654 . 66 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1617 (10th ed. 2014). 67RAP 2.5(a)(3); see also State v. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576, 582 , 327 P.3d 46 (2014). 22 No. 72951-9-1/23 this limited exception to a failure to preserve error based on the answers to two questions: "(1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so,(2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?"68 If Gill establishes a manifest constitutional error, this court conducts the harmless error analysis to determine if the error requires reversa1.69 Here, the State proposed a volun 2017App. at 654 . 66 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1617 (10th ed. 2014). 67RAP 2.5(a)(3); see also State v. Lamar, 180 Wn.2d 576, 582 , 327 P.3d 46 (2014). 22 No. 72951-9-1/23 this limited exception to a failure to preserve error based on the answers to two questions: "(1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so,(2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?"68 If Gill establishes a manifest constitutional error, this court conducts the harmless error analysis to determine if the error requires reversa1.69 Here, the State proposed a volun | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kalebaugh
green
2 sentences2025“Application of RAP 2.5(a)(3) depends on the answers to two questions: ‘(1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)). 2025“Application of RAP 2.5(a)(3) depends on the answers to two questions: ‘(1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)). | 15 | 2016–2026 |
State v. Grott
green
2 sentences2025“Application of RAP 2.5(a)(3) depends on the answers to two questions: ‘(1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)). 2025“Application of RAP 2.5(a)(3) depends on the answers to two questions: ‘(1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest?’” State v. Grott, 195 Wn.2d 256, 267 , 458 P.3d 750 (2020) (quoting State v. Kalebaugh, 183 Wn.2d 578, 583 , 355 P.3d 253 (2015)). | 7 | 2020–2025 |
State v. O'Hara
green
2 sentences2020The focus of the manifest error inquiry “must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). 2020The focus of the manifest error inquiry “must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). | 4 | 2015–2020 |
State v. O'HARA
green
2 sentences2020The focus of the manifest error inquiry “must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). 2020The focus of the manifest error inquiry “must be on whether the error is so obvious on the record that the error warrants appellate review.” State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99-100 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Courtney
green
1 sentence2022However, the “[a]dmission of evidence in violation of the [WPA] is a statutory, and not a constitutional violation.” State v. Courtney, 137 Wn. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2015State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 686-87 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988). ¶10 So before we review the merits of an unpreserved error under RAP 2.5(a)(3), we ask two questions: (1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest? 2015State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 686-87 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988). ¶10 So before we review the merits of an unpreserved error under RAP 2.5(a)(3), we ask two questions: (1) Has the party claiming error shown the error is truly of a constitutional magnitude, and if so, (2) has the party demonstrated that the error is manifest? | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.