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 2005–2024 4 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. Templetongreen2 sentences2006“Because the asserted error is a violation of a court rule (rather than a constitutional violation), it is governed by the harmless error test.” State v. Robinson 153 Wn.2d 689, 697 , 107 P.3d 90 (2005) (citing State v. Templeton, 148 Wn.2d 193, 220 , 59 P.3d 632 (2002)). 2006“Because the asserted error is a violation of a court rule (rather than a constitutional violation), it is governed by the harmless error test.” State v. Robinson 153 Wn.2d 689, 697 , 107 P.3d 90 (2005) (citing State v. Templeton, 148 Wn.2d 193, 220 , 59 P.3d 632 (2002)). | 5 | 9 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2019“Because the asserted error is a violation of a court rule (rather than a constitutional violation), it is governed by the harmless error test.” State v. Robinson, 153 Wn.2d at 697 . 2018"Because the asserted error is a violation of a court rule (rather than a constitutional violation), it is governed by the harmless error test." State v. Robinson, 153 Wn.2d 689, 697 , 107 P.3d 90 (2005). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Boydgreen2 sentences2010Grenning, on the other hand, argues that the error was of constitutional magnitude and should be reversed unless we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. ¶ 14 While it is true that Boyd rested on a violation of a court rule, we found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were implicated and that "[c]ourts have long recognized that effective assistance of counsel, access to evidence, and in some circumstances, expert witnesses, are crucial elements of due process and the right to a fair trial." Boyd, 160 Wash.2d at 434 , 158 P.3d 54 . 2010Grenning, on the other hand, argues that the error was of constitutional magnitude and should be reversed unless we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. ¶14 While it is true that Boyd rested on a violation of a court rule, we found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution were implicated and that “[c]ourts have long recognized that effective assistance of counsel, access to evidence, and in some circumstances, expert witnesses, are crucial elements of due process and the right to a fair trial.” Boyd, 160 Wn.2d at | 1 | 2 |
State v. Grenninggreen1 sentence2024State v. Grenning, 169 Wn.2d 47, 58 (2010). | 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. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2010Cunningham, 93 Wash.2d at 831 , 613 P.2d 1139 . 2010Cunningham, 93 Wn.2d at 831 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Neal
green
2 sentences2006When a court rule is involved, this court determines whether the error was prejudicial in that “ ‘within reasonable probabilities, [if] the error [had] not occurred, the outcome... would have been materially affected.’ ” Robinson, 153 Wn.2d at 697 (first and second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600, 611 , 30 P.3d 1255 (2001)). ¶14 Other DUI evidence exists beyond the refusal. 2006When a court rule is involved, this court determines whether the error was prejudicial in that “ ‘within reasonable probabilities, [if] the error [had] not occurred, the outcome... would have been materially affected.’ ” Robinson, 153 Wn.2d at 697 (first and second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Neal, 144 Wn.2d 600, 611 , 30 P.3d 1255 (2001)). ¶14 Other DUI evidence exists beyond the refusal. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Scherf
green
2 sentences2020“A violation of a court rule is harmless if there is no reasonable probability that the error materially affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Scherf, 192 Wn.2d 350 , 375, 429 P.3d 776 (2018). 2020“A violation of a court rule is harmless if there is no reasonable probability that the error materially affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Scherf, 192 Wn.2d 350 , 375, 429 P.3d 776 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Turley
green
2 sentences2005If that were the case, Robinson would have been entitled to withdraw both pleas under State v. Turley, 149 Wn.2d 395, 402 , 69 P.3d 338 (2003) (requiring court to allow defendant to withdraw all pleas in a joint plea agreement when one is állowed). ¶18 Because the asserted error is a violation of a court rule (rather than a constitutional violation), it is governed by the harmless error test. 2005If that were the case, Robinson would have been entitled to withdraw both pleas under State v. Turley, 149 Wn.2d 395, 402 , 69 P.3d 338 (2003) (requiring court to allow defendant to withdraw all pleas in a joint plea agreement when one is állowed). ¶18 Because the asserted error is a violation of a court rule (rather than a constitutional violation), it is governed by the harmless error test. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.