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.
15 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heitzlergreen2 sentences2005As stated in Canon 34, “In every particular his conduct should be above reproach.” Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Heitzler, 32 Ohio St. 2d 214 , 291 N.E.2d 477, 482 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 967 (1973). ... 2005As stated in Canon 34, “In every particular his conduct should be above reproach.” Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Heitzler, 32 Ohio St. 2d 214 , 291 N.E.2d 477, 482 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 967 (1973). ... | 2 | 3 |
Wenzel v. Mathiesgreen2 sentences2008If he should be a sole director, or one of a smaller number vested with certain powers, this obligation would be still stronger, and his acts subject to more severe scrutiny, and their validity determined by more rigid principles of morality, and freedom from motives of selfishness.” Trimble, 479 F.2d at 113-14 ; see also Wenzel v. Mathies, 542 N.W.2d 634, 641 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (directors, officers, and shareholders in closely-held corporation have a fiduciary relationship that imposes the highest standard of integrity and good faith); 18B Am. 2008If he should be a sole director, or one of a smaller number vested with certain powers, this obligation would be still stronger, and his acts subject to more severe scrutiny, and their validity determined by more rigid principles of morality, and freedom from motives of selfishness." Trimble, 479 F.2d at 113-14 ; see also Wenzel v. Mathies, 542 N.W.2d 634, 641 (Minn.App. 1996) (directors, officers and shareholders in closely-held corporation have a fiduciary relationship that imposes the highest standard of integrity and good faith); 18B Am.Jur.2d § 1460, at 445 (directors, officers, and share | 2 | 2 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2026Falling between these lowest and highest standards is “[t]he intermediate standard, which usually employs some combination of the words ‘clear,’ ‘cogent,’ ‘unequivocal,’ and ‘convincing.’” Id. at 424 . 2026By contrast, the highest standard of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” applies in criminal cases because “the interests of the defendant are of such magnitude” that the burden of proof must “exclude as nearly as possible the likelihood of an erroneous judgment.” Id. at 424, 423 . | 1 | 2 |
McMillan v. Pennsylvaniared2 sentences2001The highest standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt "is required because of the immense importance of the individual interest in avoiding both the loss of liberty and the stigma that results from a criminal conviction." McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 103 , 106 S.Ct. 2411 , 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting). 2001The highest standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt “is required because of the immense importance of the individual interest in avoiding both the loss of liberty and the stigma that results from a criminal conviction.” McMillan, 477 U.S. at 103 (Stevens, J., dissenting). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buford v. Southeast Dubois County School Corp.
green
2 sentences2005As stated in Canon 34, “In every particular his conduct should be above reproach.” Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Heitzler, 32 Ohio St. 2d 214 , 291 N.E.2d 477, 482 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 967 (1973). ... 1999As stated in Canon 34, "In every particular his conduct should be above reproach." Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heitzler, 32 Ohio St.2d 214 , 291 N.E.2d 477, 482 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 967 , 93 S.Ct. 2149 , 36 L.Ed.2d 687 (1973). | 3 | 1999–2005 |
In the Matter of the Trimble Company, a Corporation. Appeal of William J. McMinn
green
2 sentences2008If he should be a sole director, or one of a smaller number vested with certain powers, this obligation would be still stronger, and his acts subject to more severe scrutiny, and their validity determined by more rigid principles of morality, and freedom from motives of selfishness.” Trimble, 479 F.2d at 113-14 ; see also Wenzel v. Mathies, 542 N.W.2d 634, 641 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (directors, officers, and shareholders in closely-held corporation have a fiduciary relationship that imposes the highest standard of integrity and good faith); 18B Am. 2008If he should be a sole director, or one of a smaller number vested with certain powers, this obligation would be still stronger, and his acts subject to more severe scrutiny, and their validity determined by more rigid principles of morality, and freedom from motives of selfishness." Trimble, 479 F.2d at 113-14 ; see also Wenzel v. Mathies, 542 N.W.2d 634, 641 (Minn.App. 1996) (directors, officers and shareholders in closely-held corporation have a fiduciary relationship that imposes the highest standard of integrity and good faith); 18B Am.Jur.2d § 1460, at 445 (directors, officers, and share | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Leland v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2001Concomitantly, the “duty of the State of establishing every fact of the equation which adds up to a crime, and of establishing it to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is the decisive difference between criminal culpability and civil liability.” Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 805 , 72 S. Ct. 1002 , 96 L. 2001Concomitantly, the “duty of the State of establishing every fact of the equation which adds up to a crime, and of establishing it to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is the decisive difference between criminal culpability and civil liability.” Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 805 , 72 S. Ct. 1002 , 96 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Heitzler v. Cincinnati Bar Ass'n
green
2 sentences1999As stated in Canon 34, "In every particular his conduct should be above reproach." Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heitzler, 32 Ohio St.2d 214 , 291 N.E.2d 477, 482 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 967 , 93 S.Ct. 2149 , 36 L.Ed.2d 687 (1973). 1999As stated in Canon 34, “In every particular his conduct should be above reproach.” Cincinnati Bar Ass’n v. Heitzler, 32 Ohio St. 2d 214 , 291 N.E.2d 477, 482 , 57 A.L.R.3d 1134 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 967 , 93 S. Ct. 2149 , 36 L. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Specht v. Patterson
green
2 sentences1980Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605 , 18 L. 1980Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605 , 18 L. | 2 | 1972–1980 |
Reed v. Town of Gilbert
green
1 sentence2020Reed, 576 U.S. at 180 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. France
green
1 sentence2017RCW 9.94A.510; France, 176 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Heggen v. City of Seattle
green
1 sentence1992In Dabroe v. Rhodes Co., 64 Wn.2d at 434-35 , the court held that a department store has a duty to use the highest standard of care consistent with the practical operation of its escalator *117 "to protect its passengers from the danger of injury from malfunctions or defects of which they [the defendants] knew or should have anticipated from facts and circumstances known to them." In Heggen v. Seattle, 47 Wn.2d at 582-84 , the City had exclusive control of both the operation and maintenance of its buses. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Dabroe v. Rhodes Co.
green
1 sentence1992In Dabroe v. Rhodes Co., 64 Wn.2d at 434-35 , the court held that a department store has a duty to use the highest standard of care consistent with the practical operation of its escalator *117 "to protect its passengers from the danger of injury from malfunctions or defects of which they [the defendants] knew or should have anticipated from facts and circumstances known to them." In Heggen v. Seattle, 47 Wn.2d at 582-84 , the City had exclusive control of both the operation and maintenance of its buses. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Murdock
green
2 sentences1984Cf. State v. Murdock, 91 Wn.2d 336 , 588 P.2d 1143 (1979). 1984Cf. State v. Murdock, 91 Wn.2d 336 , 588 P.2d 1143 (1979). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.