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 1980–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lejeune v. Clallam Countygreen2 sentences1997Lejeune, 64 Wn. 1995McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303 ; Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 395-96 , 429 P.2d 207 (1967); see Lejeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mauricegreen2 sentences2008A lighter sentence is required whenever the jury unanimously finds the offense was committed by the [alternative with a lesser penalty] or is split between [the greater and lesser alternatives].' State v. Maurice, 79 Wash.App. 544, 550 , 903 P.2d 514, 517 (1995)."). ¶ 55 Because there was no confusion as to any of the means by which the jury found Mr. Brown guilty, the rule of lenity does not apply and the trial court was required to sentence Mr. Brown under the higher sentencing range. ¶ 56 Generally, a sentencing court is afforded wide discretion in imposing a sentence within statutory limit 2008A lighter sentence is required whenever the jury unanimously finds the offense was committed by the [alternative with a lesser penalty] or is split between [the greater and lesser alternatives].' State v. Maurice, 79 Wash.App. 544, 550 , 903 P.2d 514, 517 (1995)."). ¶ 55 Because there was no confusion as to any of the means by which the jury found Mr. Brown guilty, the rule of lenity does not apply and the trial court was required to sentence Mr. Brown under the higher sentencing range. ¶ 56 Generally, a sentencing court is afforded wide discretion in imposing a sentence within statutory limit | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Company
green
2 sentences2000"The policy underlying the exception is that the common law doctrine cannot be used to shield an employer's action which otherwise frustrates a clear manifestation of public policy." Id. at 231 , 685 P.2d 1081 . 2000"The policy underlying the exception is that the common law doctrine cannot be used to shield an employer's action which otherwise frustrates a clear manifestation of public policy." Id. at 231 , 685 P.2d 1081 . | 4 | 2000–2013 |
State v. Henderson
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 868 . 1999Id. at 868 [ 792 P.2d 514 ]. | 3 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2008The policy underlying the rule of lenity is to "place the burden squarely on the Legislature to clearly and unequivocally warn people of the actions that expose them to liability for penalties and what those penalties are." State v. Jackson, 61 Wash.App. 86, 93 , 809 P.2d 221 (1991) (citing State v. Knowles, 46 Wash.App. 426, 432 , 730 P.2d 738 (1986)). ¶ 54 The trial court also interpreted Maurice to mean that when the jury finds the defendant acted in a manner consistent with all of the alternatives, which has been found by the statute to constitute more and less relatively culpable means, t 2008The policy underlying the rule of lenity is to “place the burden squarely on the Legislature to clearly and unequivocally warn people of the actions that expose them to liability for penalties and what those penalties are.” State v. Jackson, 61 Wn. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Knowles
green
2 sentences2008The policy underlying the rule of lenity is to "place the burden squarely on the Legislature to clearly and unequivocally warn people of the actions that expose them to liability for penalties and what those penalties are." State v. Jackson, 61 Wash.App. 86, 93 , 809 P.2d 221 (1991) (citing State v. Knowles, 46 Wash.App. 426, 432 , 730 P.2d 738 (1986)). ¶ 54 The trial court also interpreted Maurice to mean that when the jury finds the defendant acted in a manner consistent with all of the alternatives, which has been found by the statute to constitute more and less relatively culpable means, t 2008The policy underlying the rule of lenity is to "place the burden squarely on the Legislature to clearly and unequivocally warn people of the actions that expose them to liability for penalties and what those penalties are." State v. Jackson, 61 Wash.App. 86, 93 , 809 P.2d 221 (1991) (citing State v. Knowles, 46 Wash.App. 426, 432 , 730 P.2d 738 (1986)). ¶ 54 The trial court also interpreted Maurice to mean that when the jury finds the defendant acted in a manner consistent with all of the alternatives, which has been found by the statute to constitute more and less relatively culpable means, t | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Roberts v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences2000We explained "The exception has been utilized in instances where application of the terminable at will doctrine would have led to a result clearly inconsistent with a stated public policy and the community interest it advances." Id. (citing Roberts v. ARCO, 88 Wash.2d 887, 897 , 568 P.2d 764 (1977)). 2000We explained "The exception has been utilized in instances where application of the terminable at will doctrine would have led to a result clearly inconsistent with a stated public policy and the community interest it advances." Id. (citing Roberts v. ARCO, 88 Wash.2d 887, 897 , 568 P.2d 764 (1977)). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
McDaniels v. Carlson
green
2 sentences1997McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 303 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). 1997McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 303 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). | 2 | 1995–1997 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2017State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)(citing State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 685 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)). 2017State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)(citing State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 685 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. O'Hara
green
2 sentences2017State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009) (quoting State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 685 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)). 2017State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)(citing State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 685 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. O'HARA
green
2 sentences2017State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009) (quoting State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 685 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)). 2017State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 98 , 217 P.3d 756 (2009)(citing State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 685 , 757 P.2d 492 (1988)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 231 , 685 P.2d 1081 (1984). ¶48 A WTVP claim requires the plaintiff to establish four elements: (1) “the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element),” (2) that “discouraging the conduct in which [the plaintiff] engaged would jeopardize the public policy {the jeopardy element),” (3) that the protected conduct “caused the dismissal (the causation element),” and (4) that the employer-defendant does not have a “justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element).” Gardner, 128 Wn.2d at 941 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bordeaux v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
green
2 sentences1995McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303 ; Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 395-96 , 429 P.2d 207 (1967); see Lejeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. 1995McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303 ; Bordeaux v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 71 Wn.2d 392, 395-96 , 429 P.2d 207 (1967); see Lejeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont
green
1 sentence1984For example, in Harless v. First Nat'l Bank, 246 S.E.2d 270 (W. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
The Marckel Co. v. Zitzow
green
1 sentence1980The policy underlying the doctrine was expressed in Marckel v. Zitzow, supra 218 Minn, at 308, 15 N.W.2d at 779 : Important official acts were actually performed by the judge of the court created under a statute apparently regularly enacted by the branch of the government to which the power to make laws has been delegated by the constitution. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.