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.
16 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Griffin v. Draper
green
2 sentences2014When evaluating whether an appeal is frivolous, this court considers the following factors: "(1) A civil appellant has a right to appeal under RAP 2.2; (2) all doubts as to whether the appeal is frivolous should be resolved in favor of the appellant; (3) the record should be considered as a whole; (4) an appeal that is affirmed simply because the arguments are rejected is not frivolous; (5) an appeal is frivolous if there are no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ, and it is so totally devoid of merit that there was no reasonable possibility of reversal." Griffin, 32 Wn. 2014When evaluating whether an appeal is frivolous, this court considers the following factors: “(1) A civil appellant has a right to appeal under RAP 2.2; (2) all doubts as to whether the appeal is frivolous should be resolved in favor of the appellant; (3) the record should be considered as a whole; (4) an appeal that is affirmed simply because the arguments are rejected is not frivolous; (5) an appeal is frivolous if there are no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ, and it is so totally devoid of merit that there was no reasonable possibility of reversal.” Griffin, 32 Wn. | 3 | 2014–2022 |
Streater v. White
green
2 sentences2014App. at 616 (quoting Streater v. White, 26 Wn. 2014App. at 616 (quoting Streater v. White, 26 Wn. | 3 | 2002–2014 |
Chaussee v. Maryland Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2009Besel, 146 Wash.2d at 738 , 49 P.3d 887 ; Chaussee, 60 Wash.App. at 512 , 803 P.2d 1339 (quoting Glover v. Tacoma Gen. 2009Besel, 146 Wn.2d at 738 ; Chaussee, 60 Wn. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Besel v. Viking Insurance
green
2 sentences2009Besel, 146 Wash.2d at 738 , 49 P.3d 887 ; Chaussee, 60 Wash.App. at 512 , 803 P.2d 1339 (quoting Glover v. Tacoma Gen. 2009Besel, 146 Wn.2d at 738 ; Chaussee, 60 Wn. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Delany v. Canning
neutral
2 sentences2002Delany v. Canning, 84 Wn. 2002Delany v. Canning, 84 Wash.App. 498, 510 , 929 P.2d 475 (citing Streater v. White, 26 Wash.App. 430, 435 , 613 P.2d 187 , review denied, 94 Wash.2d 1014 (1980)), review denied, 131 Wash.2d 1026 , 937 P.2d 1101 (1997). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2001State v. Anderson, 107 Wash.2d 745, 750 , 733 P.2d 517 (1987) (citations omitted). 2001State v. Anderson, 107 Wash.2d 745, 750 , 733 P.2d 517 (1987) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2000–2001 |
State v. Montgomery
green
1 sentence2024To determine whether a statement is impermissible opinion testimony, a court considers the following factors: “ ‘(1) the type of witness involved, (2) the specific nature of the testimony, (3) the nature of the charges, (4) the type of defense, and (5) the other evidence before the trier of fact.’ ” State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 591 , 183 P.3d 267 (2008). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Montgomery
green
1 sentence2024To determine whether a statement is impermissible opinion testimony, a court considers the following factors: “ ‘(1) the type of witness involved, (2) the specific nature of the testimony, (3) the nature of the charges, (4) the type of defense, and (5) the other evidence before the trier of fact.’ ” State v. Montgomery, 163 Wn.2d 577, 591 , 183 P.3d 267 (2008). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Espinoza v. American Commerce Insurance
neutral
2 sentences2022When evaluating whether an appeal is frivolous, this court considers the following factors: “(1) A civil appellant has a right to appeal under RAP 2.2; (2) all doubts as to whether the appeal is frivolous should be resolved in favor of the appellant; (3) the record should be considered as a whole; (4) an appeal that is affirmed simply because the arguments are rejected is not frivolous; (5) an appeal is frivolous if there are no debatable issues upon which reasonable minds might differ, and it is so totally devoid of merit that there was no reasonable possibility of reversal.” Espinoza v. Amer 2022App. 176, 202 , 336 P.3d 115 (2014) (quoting, Griffin v. Draper, 32 Wn. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
1 sentence2015Biqqers. 409 U.S. at 199-200 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Escalona
green
1 sentence2014State v. Escalona, 49 Wn. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Gosby
green
2 sentences2013Ed. 2d 747 (1972), overruled on other grounds in State v. Gosbv. 85 Wn.2d 758 , 539 P.2d 680 (1975)). -4- No. 68150-8-1/5 The court considers the following factors to ascertain the potential for prejudice: (1) the strength of the State's evidence on each count; (2) the clarity of defenses to each count; (3) the court's instructions to the jury to consider the counts separately; and (4) the admissibility of the evidence of the other crimes even if not joined for trial. 2013Ed. 2d 747 (1972), overruled on other grounds in State v. Gosbv. 85 Wn.2d 758 , 539 P.2d 680 (1975)). -4- No. 68150-8-1/5 The court considers the following factors to ascertain the potential for prejudice: (1) the strength of the State's evidence on each count; (2) the clarity of defenses to each count; (3) the court's instructions to the jury to consider the counts separately; and (4) the admissibility of the evidence of the other crimes even if not joined for trial. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Russell
green
2 sentences2013State v. Russell. 125 Wn.2d 24, 63 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994). 2013State v. Russell. 125 Wn.2d 24, 63 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Fain
green
2 sentences2012State v. Fain, 94 Wn.2d 387, 397 , 617 P.2d 720 (1980); Flores, 114 Wn. 2012State v. Fain, 94 Wn.2d 387, 397 , 617 P.2d 720 (1980); Flores, 114 Wn. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bennett v. Hardy
green
1 sentence2012Under Bennett, this court considers the following factors to determine whether there is an implied statutory cause of action: “[FJirst, whether the plaintiff is within the class for whose ‘especial’ benefit the statute was enacted; second, whether legislative intent, explicitly or implicitly, supports creating or denying a remedy; and third, whether implying a remedy is consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislation.” Bennett, 113 Wn.2d at 920-21 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Flores
green
1 sentence2012State v. Fain, 94 Wn.2d 387, 397 , 617 P.2d 720 (1980); Flores, 114 Wn. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Besel v. Viking Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
green
1 sentence2009Besel, 146 Wash.2d at 738 , 49 P.3d 887 ; Chaussee, 60 Wash.App. at 512 , 803 P.2d 1339 (quoting Glover v. Tacoma Gen. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Compassion In Dying v. State Of Washington
green
1 sentence1997Compassion in Dying, 79 F.3d at 816 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.