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.
17 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arthur
green
2 sentences2020The theories of the case can be sufficiently argued and understood by the jury without such instruction." Id. at 125 n.l. 2018The theories of the case can be sufficiently argued and understood by the jury without such instruction.” Id. 6 No. 34808-3-III In re Pers. | 9 | 1999–2020 |
State v. Riley
green
2 sentences2020We aclcnowledged this dicta in Riley, but we nevertheless held that "an aggressor instruction should be given where called for by the evidence." Riley, 137 Wn.2d at 910 n.2. 2011State v. Riley, 137 Wash.2d 904 , 910 n. 2, 976 P.2d 624 (1999). ¶ 10 Mr. Bea argues that it was error to give the first aggressor instruction because the evidence was clear that it was Mr. Cruz and his friends who broke down the bathroom door and that he and Mr. Cruz both testified that once the bathroom door was breached it was Mr. Cruz, not he, who threw the first punch. | 5 | 2010–2020 |
State v. Riley
green
2 sentences2011State v. Riley, 137 Wn.2d 904 , 910 n.2, 976 P.2d 624 (1999). ¶10 Mr. Bea argues that it was error to give the first aggressor instruction because the evidence was clear that it was Mr. Cruz and his friends who broke down the bathroom door and that he and Mr. Cruz both testified that once the bathroom door was breached it was Mr. Cruz, not he, who threw the first punch. 2011State v. Riley, 137 Wash.2d 904 , 910 n. 2, 976 P.2d 624 (1999). ¶ 10 Mr. Bea argues that it was error to give the first aggressor instruction because the evidence was clear that it was Mr. Cruz and his friends who broke down the bathroom door and that he and Mr. Cruz both testified that once the bathroom door was breached it was Mr. Cruz, not he, who threw the first punch. | 3 | 2010–2011 |
State v. Stark
green
1 sentence2019Stark, 158 Wn. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2018State v. Arthur, 42 Wn. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Bea
green
1 sentence2017Therefore, the instruction should “be given only sparingly and carefully, in cases where the theories of the case cannot be sufficiently argued and understood by the jury without such an instruction.” Bea, 162 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Wilkins v. Grays Harbor Community Hospital
green
2 sentences1976Wilkins v. Grays Harbor Community Hosp., 71 Wn. 2d 178, 182 , 427 P.2d 716 (1967). 1976Wilkins v. Grays Harbor Community Hosp., 71 Wn. 2d 178, 182 , 427 P.2d 716 (1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Rosi
neutral
2 sentences1972Accordingly, it was the decision of this court in Adams that no alibi instruction be given in the future, though requested by either party. [1] In Adams, we pointed out that an alibi instruction had been sanctioned by the laws of this state since State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902); and that an instruction virtually identical to instruction No. 9 now before us has been used since State v. Rosi, 120 Wash. 514 , 208 P. 15 (1922). 1972Accordingly, it was the decision of this court in Adams that no alibi instruction be given in the future, though requested by either party. [1] In Adams, we pointed out that an alibi instruction had been sanctioned by the laws of this state since State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902); and that an instruction virtually identical to instruction No. 9 now before us has been used since State v. Rosi, 120 Wash. 514 , 208 P. 15 (1922). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Burton
neutral
2 sentences1972Accordingly, it was the decision of this court in Adams that no alibi instruction be given in the future, though requested by either party. [1] In Adams, we pointed out that an alibi instruction had been sanctioned by the laws of this state since State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902); and that an instruction virtually identical to instruction No. 9 now before us has been used since State v. Rosi, 120 Wash. 514 , 208 P. 15 (1922). 1972Accordingly, it was the decision of this court in Adams that no alibi instruction be given in the future, though requested by either party. [1] In Adams, we pointed out that an alibi instruction had been sanctioned by the laws of this state since State v. Burton, 27 Wash. 528 , 67 P. 1097 (1902); and that an instruction virtually identical to instruction No. 9 now before us has been used since State v. Rosi, 120 Wash. 514 , 208 P. 15 (1922). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Scholz v. Leuer
green
1 sentence1952We have pronounced this to be the rule so often that citation of authority should not be necessary, but what we said on the subject in' Scholz v. Leuer, 7 Wn. (2d) 76, 109 P. (2d) 294 , is applicable to this case. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.