18 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2023 1 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. Parnellred2 sentences2001See Stentz, 30 Wash. at 143 , 70 P. 241 ("A refusal to sustain challenges for proper cause, necessitating peremptory challenges on the part of the accused, will be considered on appeal as prejudicial where the accused has been compelled subsequently to exhaust all his peremptory challenges before the final selection of the jury."); see also Parnell, 77 Wash.2d at 508 , 463 P.2d 134 (same). 2001See Stentz, 30 Wash, at 143 (“A refusal to sustain challenges for proper cause, necessitating peremptory challenges on the part of the accused, will be considered on appeal as prejudicial where the accused has been compelled subsequently to exhaust all his peremptory challenges before the final selection of the jury.”); see also Parnell, 77 Wn.2d at 508 (same). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fernandez-Medinagreen2 sentences2020See Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d at 461 . 2009State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). | 1 | 3 |
Standlee v. Smithgreen2 sentences2008Standlee, 83 Wn.2d at 408 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Neaderland, 424 F.2d at 642 ). ¶15 The proponent of the doctrine of res judicata “ ‘as to a particular issue involved in the pending case’ ” must prove by competent evidence that the issue was actually determined and necessarily adjudicated in the prior action, where the record does not clearly reflect such determination. 2008Standlee, 83 Wash.2d at 408 , 518 P.2d 721 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Neaderland, 424 F.2d at 642 ). ¶ 15 The proponent of the doctrine of res judicata "`as to a particular issue involved in the pending case'" must prove by competent evidence that the issue was actually determined and necessarily adjudicated in the prior action, where the record does not clearly reflect such determination. | 1 | 2 |
Mickey Dilts v. Penske Logistics LLCgreen1 sentence2017Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637, 649 (9th Cir. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stentzgreen2 sentences2001See Stentz, 30 Wash. at 143 , 70 P. 241 ("A refusal to sustain challenges for proper cause, necessitating peremptory challenges on the part of the accused, will be considered on appeal as prejudicial where the accused has been compelled subsequently to exhaust all his peremptory challenges before the final selection of the jury."); see also Parnell, 77 Wash.2d at 508 , 463 P.2d 134 (same). 2001See Stentz, 30 Wash. at 143 , 70 P. 241 ("A refusal to sustain challenges for proper cause, necessitating peremptory challenges on the part of the accused, will be considered on appeal as prejudicial where the accused has been compelled subsequently to exhaust all his peremptory challenges before the final selection of the jury."); see also Parnell, 77 Wash.2d at 508 , 463 P.2d 134 (same). | 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. Hanson
green
2 sentences2023State v. Hanson, 59 Wn. 2019Hanson, 59 Wn. | 3 | 2018–2023 |
State v. Fernandez-Medina
green
2 sentences2009State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wn.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). 2009State v. Fernandez-Medina, 141 Wash.2d 448, 455-56 , 6 P.3d 1150 (2000). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Robert Neaderland v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
green
2 sentences2008Standlee, 83 Wn.2d at 408 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Neaderland, 424 F.2d at 642 ). ¶15 The proponent of the doctrine of res judicata “ ‘as to a particular issue involved in the pending case’ ” must prove by competent evidence that the issue was actually determined and necessarily adjudicated in the prior action, where the record does not clearly reflect such determination. 2008Standlee, 83 Wash.2d at 408 , 518 P.2d 721 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Neaderland, 424 F.2d at 642 ). ¶ 15 The proponent of the doctrine of res judicata "`as to a particular issue involved in the pending case'" must prove by competent evidence that the issue was actually determined and necessarily adjudicated in the prior action, where the record does not clearly reflect such determination. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Rufener v. Scott
green
2 sentences2008Rufener v. Scott, 46 Wn.2d 240, 245 , 280 P.2d 253 (1955) (quoting 30 Am. 2008Rufener v. Scott, 46 Wn.2d 240, 245 , 280 P.2d 253 (1955) (quoting 30 Am. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Washington Mutual Savings Bank v. United States
green
2 sentences2023When the defendant is the proponent of the instruction, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requires determining “whether the evidence is such that jurors could find more than one event sufficient to convict,” which in turn means “it is necessary to view it in the light most favorable to the State.” Id. at 656 n.6. 2023“If the evidence proves only one violation, then no Petrich instruction is required, for a general verdict will necessarily reflect unanimous agreement that the one violation occurred.” Id. at 657 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2020Fisher, 5 No. 79147-8-I/6 185 Wn.2d at 849 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Brokaw v. Town of Stanwood
green
2 sentences2018Brokaw v. Town of Stanwood, 79 Wash. 322, 325-26 , 140 P. 358 (1914). 2018Brokaw v. Town of Stanwood, 79 Wash. 322, 325-26 , 140 P. 358 (1914). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. McDonald
green
1 sentence2015State v. j II McDonald, 123 Wn. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2014In Walker, Division Three of this court held the proponent of an exception to the statute should bear the burden of proving that the exception exists. 153 Wn. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Nelson v. Mueller
green
2 sentences2013A juror's communication with a third party about a case constitutes misconduct.26 The trial court may grant a new trial only where such juror misconduct has prejudiced the defendant.27 24 Nelson v. Mueller, 85 Wn.2d 234, 238-39 , 533 P.2d 383 (1975) (There is no error in refusing to give an instruction where the proponent of such instruction adequately argued their theory to the jury.) 25 Ezell. 105 Wn. 2013A juror's communication with a third party about a case constitutes misconduct.26 The trial court may grant a new trial only where such juror misconduct has prejudiced the defendant.27 24 Nelson v. Mueller, 85 Wn.2d 234, 238-39 , 533 P.2d 383 (1975) (There is no error in refusing to give an instruction where the proponent of such instruction adequately argued their theory to the jury.) 25 Ezell. 105 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Depaz
green
1 sentence2013App. at 488. 26 State v. Depaz, 165 Wn.2d 842, 858-59 , 204 P.3d 217 (2009). 27 State v. Earl, 142 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Depaz
green
1 sentence2013App. at 488. 26 State v. Depaz, 165 Wn.2d 842, 858-59 , 204 P.3d 217 (2009). 27 State v. Earl, 142 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Earl
green
1 sentence2013App. at 488. 26 State v. Depaz, 165 Wn.2d 842, 858-59 , 204 P.3d 217 (2009). 27 State v. Earl, 142 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
A,B,C,D,E,F,G, & H v. District Court of the Second Judicial District
green
2 sentences1986In recognition of the significant proof problems facing the proponent of the exception, the Colorado courts require only that there be a showing of some foundation in fact for the alleged wrongful conduct in order to place the communication before a grand jury, A v. District Court, 191 Colo. 10 , 550 P.2d 315 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 , 50 L. 1986In recognition of the significant proof problems facing the proponent of the exception, the Colorado courts require only that there be a showing of some foundation in fact for the alleged wrongful conduct in order to place the communication before a grand jury, A v. District Court, 191 Colo. 10 , 550 P.2d 315 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 , 50 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Bennett v. Rumsfeld
green
1 sentence1986Ed. 2d 751 , 97 S. Ct. 737 (1977), or to render the communication discoverable by an opposing party in a civil suit. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
International Rectifier Corp. v. Pfizer, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986In recognition of the significant proof problems facing the proponent of the exception, the Colorado courts require only that there be a showing of some foundation in fact for the alleged wrongful conduct in order to place the communication before a grand jury, A v. District Court, 191 Colo. 10 , 550 P.2d 315 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 , 50 L. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Shafer v. State
green
2 sentences1975Shafer v. State, 83 Wn.2d 618, 623 , 521 P.2d 736 (1974). 1975Shafer v. State, 83 Wn.2d 618, 623 , 521 P.2d 736 (1974). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.