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 1998–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tunstall v. Bergesongreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a “demanding standard of review”); Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that “we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution”); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wn.2d 815, 819 , 664 2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wash.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a "demanding standard of review"); Island Cnty. v. State, 135 Wash.2d 141 , 147, 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that "we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution"); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wash.2d 815, 819 | 2 | 4 |
Tunstall Ex Rel. Tunstall v. Bergesongreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a “demanding standard of review”); Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that “we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution”); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wn.2d 815, 819 , 664 2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wash.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a "demanding standard of review"); Island Cnty. v. State, 135 Wash.2d 141 , 147, 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that "we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution"); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wash.2d 815, 819 | 2 | 4 |
Grant v. Spellmangreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a “demanding standard of review”); Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that “we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution”); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wn.2d 815, 819 , 664 2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a “demanding standard of review”); Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that “we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution”); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wn.2d 815, 819 , 664 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1998Smith, 111 Wash.2d at 17-18 , 759 P.2d 372 (Utter, J., dissenting). 1998Smith, 111 Wash.2d at 17-18 , 759 P.2d 372 (Utter, J., dissenting). | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of Youngred2 sentences2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wash.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a "demanding standard of review"); Island Cnty. v. State, 135 Wash.2d 141 , 147, 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that "we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution"); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wash.2d 815, 819 2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wash.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a "demanding standard of review"); Island Cnty. v. State, 135 Wash.2d 141 , 147, 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that "we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution"); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wash.2d 815, 819 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Island County v. State
green
2 sentences2012Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998). “[T]he Legislature speaks for the people and we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution.” Id. 2012Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998). “[T]he Legislature speaks for the people and we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution.” Id. | 13 | 2001–2021 |
Island County v. State
green
2 sentences2012Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998). “[T]he Legislature speaks for the people and we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution.” Id. 2012While not an evidentiary standard, “we will not strike a duly enacted statute unless we are ‘fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution.’ ” Id. at 606 (quoting Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998)). | 12 | 2001–2021 |
SCHOOL DISTRICTS'ALLIANCE v. State
green
2 sentences2021Dists.’ All. for Adequate Funding of Special Educ. v. State, 170 Wn.2d 599, 606 , 244 P.3d 1 (2010) (quoting Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998)). 2012While not an evidentiary standard, “we will not strike a duly enacted statute unless we are ‘fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution.’ ” Id. at 606 (quoting Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998)). | 5 | 2011–2021 |
School Districts' Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education v. State
green
2 sentences2021Dists.’ All. for Adequate Funding of Special Educ. v. State, 170 Wn.2d 599, 606 , 244 P.3d 1 (2010) (quoting Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998)). 2014Dists.’ Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Educ. v. State, 170 Wn.2d 599, 606 , 244 P.3d 1 (2010) (quoting Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998)). | 5 | 2011–2021 |
State v. Leek
green
2 sentences2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a “demanding standard of review”); Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141, 147 , 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that “we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution”); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wn.2d 815, 819 , 664 2011See, e.g., Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wash.2d 201, 220 , 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (describing the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review in challenges to the constitutionality of statutes as a "demanding standard of review"); Island Cnty. v. State, 135 Wash.2d 141 , 147, 955 P.2d 377 (1998) (applying a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to a challenge of the constitutionality of a statute and stating that "we are hesitant to strike a duly enacted statute unless fully convinced, after a searching legal analysis, that the statute violates the constitution"); Grant v. Spellman, 99 Wash.2d 815, 819 | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Seattle School District No. 1 v. State
green
2 sentences2010The Alliance bases this argument on our statement in Seattle School District that "[t]hus, contrary to appellants' contention, the normal civil burden of proof, i.e., `preponderance of the evidence', applies." 90 Wash.2d at 528 , 585 P.2d 71 . 2010The Alliance bases this argument on our statement in Seattle School District that "[t]hus, contrary to appellants' contention, the normal civil burden of proof, i.e., `preponderance of the evidence', applies." 90 Wash.2d at 528 , 585 P.2d 71 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
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.