Knapstad motion in Washington

101 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 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.

Followed or applied (21)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Knapstadgreen wash · 1986 · cited in 53 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1992–2024 2 sentences 2024FACTS 2 On July 17, 2022, Cortez-Dominguez drove himself and his two codefendants, J.T. and A.M.-T., 3 to a Walmart in Mount Vernon, Washington. 1 State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 , 729 P.2d 48 (1986). 2 In a pretrial Knapstad motion, the trial court examines the sufficiency of the evidence based on the facts in the affidavit. 2024FACTS 2 On July 17, 2022, Cortez-Dominguez drove himself and his two codefendants, J.T. and A.M.-T., 3 to a Walmart in Mount Vernon, Washington. 1 State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 , 729 P.2d 48 (1986). 2 In a pretrial Knapstad motion, the trial court examines the sufficiency of the evidence based on the facts in the affidavit.	11	53
State v. Freiganggreen washctapp · 2002 · cited in 7 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2014 2 sentences 2011See State v. Smith, 155 Wash.2d 496, 501 , 120 P.3d 559 (2005) (failure to raise hearsay objection below waives it on appeal); State v. Freigang, 115 Wash.App. 496, 508 , 61 P.3d 343 (2002) (Morgan, J., concurring) (when defendant challenges sufficiency with a Knapstad motion, the trial court needs to determine admissibility "to the extent it is contested" and then turn to sufficiency), review denied, 149 Wash.2d 1028 , 78 P.3d 656 (2003). 2007In Freigang , we noted that, unlike a civil summary judgment, “in a Knapstad motion, the State’s affidavit of probable cause and responding affidavit can be made by someone not competent to testify in the trial.” Freigang, 115 Wn.	3	7
State v. Montanogreen wash · 2010 · cited in 8 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2024 2 sentences 2024To survive a Knapstad motion, the State “must provide at least some evidence supporting each element of the crime charged to merit consideration by a jury.” State v. Montano, 169 Wn.2d 872, 879 , 239 P.3d 360 (2010). 2021To survive a Knapstad motion, “the State must provide at least some evidence supporting each element of the crime charged to merit 16 No. 37985-0-III State v. Woods consideration by a jury.” State v. Montano, 169 Wn.2d 872, 879 , 239 P.3d 360 (2010).	2	8
State v. Montanogreen wash · 2010 · cited in 8 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2024 2 sentences 2024To survive a Knapstad motion, the State “must provide at least some evidence supporting each element of the crime charged to merit consideration by a jury.” State v. Montano, 169 Wn.2d 872, 879 , 239 P.3d 360 (2010). 2021To survive a Knapstad motion, “the State must provide at least some evidence supporting each element of the crime charged to merit 16 No. 37985-0-III State v. Woods consideration by a jury.” State v. Montano, 169 Wn.2d 872, 879 , 239 P.3d 360 (2010).	2	8
State v. O'Mearagreen washctapp · 2008 · cited in 7 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2017 2 sentences 2017State v. O’Meara, 143 Wn. 2014State v. O’Meara, 143 Wn.	2	7
State v. Groomgreen wash · 1997 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1999–2011 2 sentences 2004App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affd, 149 Wn.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wn.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion “does not include deciding whose version of events is correct,” but concerns whether the State has established “a prima facie case of guilt”). 2004"An appellate court will uphold the trial court's dismissal of a charge pursuant to a Knapstad motion if no rational finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime." State v. Snedden, 112 Wash.App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affirmed, 149 Wash.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wash.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion "does not include deciding whose version of events is correct," but concerns whether the State has established "a prima facie case of guilt.").	2	6
State v. Groomgreen wash · 1997 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1999–2011 2 sentences 2004App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affd, 149 Wn.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wn.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion “does not include deciding whose version of events is correct,” but concerns whether the State has established “a prima facie case of guilt”). 2004"An appellate court will uphold the trial court's dismissal of a charge pursuant to a Knapstad motion if no rational finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime." State v. Snedden, 112 Wash.App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affirmed, 149 Wash.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wash.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion "does not include deciding whose version of events is correct," but concerns whether the State has established "a prima facie case of guilt.").	2	6
State v. Contegreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018 2 sentences 2018State v. Conte, 159 Wn.2d 797, 803 , 154 P.3d 194 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 992 (2007). 2014See State v. Montano, 169 Wn.2d 872, 876 , 239 P.3d 360 (2010) (citing State v. Conte, 159 Wn.2d 797, 803 , 154 P.3d 194 (2007)). ii.	2	3
State v. Contegreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018 2 sentences 2018State v. Conte, 159 Wn.2d 797, 803 , 154 P.3d 194 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 992 (2007). 2014See State v. Montano, 169 Wn.2d 872, 876 , 239 P.3d 360 (2010) (citing State v. Conte, 159 Wn.2d 797, 803 , 154 P.3d 194 (2007)). ii.	2	3
State v. Athangreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2008–2014 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., State v. Athan, 160 Wash.2d 354 , 378 n. 5, 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (stating that insufficiency of the evidence, denial of a pretrial Knapstad motion, and denial of a midtrial motion to dismiss are reviewed under the same standard). 2008See, e.g., State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354 , 378 n.5, 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (stating that insufficiency of the evidence, denial of a pretrial Knapstad motion, and denial of a midtrial motion to dismiss are reviewed under the same standard).	2	3
State v. Athangreen wash · 2007 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2008–2014 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., State v. Athan, 160 Wash.2d 354 , 378 n. 5, 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (stating that insufficiency of the evidence, denial of a pretrial Knapstad motion, and denial of a midtrial motion to dismiss are reviewed under the same standard). 2008See, e.g., State v. Athan, 160 Wn.2d 354 , 378 n.5, 158 P.3d 27 (2007) (stating that insufficiency of the evidence, denial of a pretrial Knapstad motion, and denial of a midtrial motion to dismiss are reviewed under the same standard).	2	3
State v. Lopezgreen washctapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003 2 sentences 2003See State v. Lopez, 93 Wash.App. 619, 622 , 970 P.2d 765 (1999) (dismissal of the information is appropriate only if no rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Dunn, 82 Wash.App. 122, 126 , 916 P.2d 952 (the court looks to the undisputed facts and ascertains whether, as a matter of law, they establish a prima facie showing of guilt), review denied, 130 Wash.2d 1018 , 928 P.2d 413 (1996). 2003See State v. Lopez, 93 Wash.App. 619, 622 , 970 P.2d 765 (1999) (dismissal of the information is appropriate only if no rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Dunn, 82 Wash.App. 122, 126 , 916 P.2d 952 (the court looks to the undisputed facts and ascertains whether, as a matter of law, they establish a prima facie showing of guilt), review denied, 130 Wash.2d 1018 , 928 P.2d 413 (1996).	2	2
State v. Meachamgreen washctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
State v. Michielligreen wash · 1997 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
State v. Smithgreen wash · 2005 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
State v. RHSgreen washctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
State v. R.H.S.green washctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
State v. Smithgreen wash · 2005 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
State v. O'MEARAgreen washctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Wardgreen wash · 2003 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008	1	1
State v. Wardgreen wash · 2003 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (40)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Jackson green washctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2019State v. Jackson, 82 Wn. 2013However, "a defendant who goes to trial may not appeal the denial of a Knapstad motion." State v. Jackson, 82 Wn.	16	2001–2019
State v. Bauer green wash · 2014 2 sentences 2023A Knapstad motion should be granted and a criminal charge dismissed if there are “no disputed material facts and the undisputed facts do not raise a prima facie case of guilt as a matter of law.” State v. Bauer, 180 Wn.2d 929, 935 , 329 P.3d 67 (2014) (citing Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d at 356-57 ). 4 No. 38630-9-III State v. Koziol In deciding a defendant’s motion, “the court shall view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecuting attorney and the court shall make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecuting attorney.” CrR 8.3(c)(3). 2023A Knapstad motion should be granted and a criminal charge dismissed if there are “no disputed material facts and the undisputed facts do not raise a prima facie case of guilt as a matter of law.” State v. Bauer, 180 Wn.2d 929, 935 , 329 P.3d 67 (2014) (citing Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d at 356-57 ). 4 No. 38630-9-III State v. Koziol In deciding a defendant’s motion, “the court shall view all evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecuting attorney and the court shall make all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecuting attorney.” CrR 8.3(c)(3).	6	2017–2024
State v. Richards green washctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2020State v. Richards, 109 Wn. 2008However, "after proceeding to trial, a defendant cannot appeal the denial of a Knapstad motion, which is a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Cannon, 120 Wash.App. 86, 90 , 84 P.3d 283 (2004) (citing State v. Richards, 109 Wash.App. 648, 653 , 36 P.3d 1119 (2001)).	6	2004–2020
State v. Olson green washctapp · 1994 2 sentences 2014App. 348 , 357 n.6, 869 P.2d 110 (noting similarity between standards of review for Knapstad motion and challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence), review denied, 124 Wn.2d 1029 (1994). 2014According to WEBSTER' S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1826 ( definition 2) 1993), to " protract" means " to draw out or lengthen in time or space: CONTINUE, PROLONG." 6 See also State v. App. 348, 357 n. 6, 869 P. 2d 110 ( 1994) ( noting similarity Olson, 73 Wn. between standards of review for Knapstad motion and challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence), review denied, 124 Wn.2d 1029 ( 1994). 7 No. 44026 -1 - II Because the term " prolonged" is a relative term, the dictionary definition alone does not answer the question of whether a prolonged period can, in some circumstances, be as	6	1995–2014
State v. Freigang green washctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2011App. 496, 508 , 61 P.3d 343 (2002) (Morgan, J., concurring) (when defendant challenges sufficiency with a Knapstad motion, the trial court needs to determine admissibility “to the extent it is contested” and then turn to sufficiency), review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1028 (2003). 2011See State v. Smith, 155 Wash.2d 496, 501 , 120 P.3d 559 (2005) (failure to raise hearsay objection below waives it on appeal); State v. Freigang, 115 Wash.App. 496, 508 , 61 P.3d 343 (2002) (Morgan, J., concurring) (when defendant challenges sufficiency with a Knapstad motion, the trial court needs to determine admissibility "to the extent it is contested" and then turn to sufficiency), review denied, 149 Wash.2d 1028 , 78 P.3d 656 (2003).	6	2007–2011
State v. Snedden green washctapp · 2002 2 sentences 2004“An appellate court will uphold the trial court’s dismissal of a charge pursuant to a Knapstad motion if no rational finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime.” State v. Snedden, 112 Wn. 2004"An appellate court will uphold the trial court's dismissal of a charge pursuant to a Knapstad motion if no rational finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime." State v. Snedden, 112 Wash.App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affirmed, 149 Wash.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wash.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion "does not include deciding whose version of events is correct," but concerns whether the State has established "a prima facie case of guilt.").	4	2004–2014
State v. Cannon green washctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2008However, "after proceeding to trial, a defendant cannot appeal the denial of a Knapstad motion, which is a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Cannon, 120 Wash.App. 86, 90 , 84 P.3d 283 (2004) (citing State v. Richards, 109 Wash.App. 648, 653 , 36 P.3d 1119 (2001)). 2008However, “after proceeding to trial, a defendant cannot appeal the denial of a Knapstad motion, which is a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Cannon, 120 Wn.	4	2008–2013
State v. Carter neutral washctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2024State v. Carter, 138 Wn. 2008See Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d at 357 ; State v. Carter, 138 Wn.	3	2008–2024
State v. Zakel green washctapp · 1991 2 sentences 2019State v. Zakel, 61 Wash.App. 805 , 811 n.3, 812 P.2d 512 (1991) (declining to review a denial of a Knapstad motion after trial); State v. Knapstad, 107 Wash.2d 346 , 729 P.2d 48 (1986) ; CrR 8.3(c)(3) ("A decision denying a motion to dismiss under this rule is not subject to appeal under RAP 2.2."). 2019State v. Zakel, 61 Wash.App. 805 , 811 n.3, 812 P.2d 512 (1991) (declining to review a denial of a Knapstad motion after trial); State v. Knapstad, 107 Wash.2d 346 , 729 P.2d 48 (1986) ; CrR 8.3(c)(3) ("A decision denying a motion to dismiss under this rule is not subject to appeal under RAP 2.2.").	3	1994–2019
State v. Newcomb green washctapp · 2011 2 sentences 2017State v. Newcomb, 160 Wn. 2014State v. Newcomb, 160 Wn.	3	2014–2017
State v. Dunn green washctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2007App. 122, 125 , 916 P.2d 952 (1996); Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d at 356. ¶9 We view the evidence and the reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the State when passing on a Knapstad motion. 2007State v. Dunn, 82 Wash.App. 122, 125 , 916 P.2d 952 (1996); Knapstad, 107 Wash.2d at 356 , 729 P.2d 48 . ¶ 9 We view the evidence and the reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the State when passing on a Knapstad motion.	3	2003–2007
State v. Richards neutral washctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2008However, "after proceeding to trial, a defendant cannot appeal the denial of a Knapstad motion, which is a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Cannon, 120 Wash.App. 86, 90 , 84 P.3d 283 (2004) (citing State v. Richards, 109 Wash.App. 648, 653 , 36 P.3d 1119 (2001)). 2004State v. Richards, 109 Wash.App. 648, 653 , 36 P.3d 1119 (2001).	2	2004–2008
State v. Cannon green washctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2008However, "after proceeding to trial, a defendant cannot appeal the denial of a Knapstad motion, which is a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Cannon, 120 Wash.App. 86, 90 , 84 P.3d 283 (2004) (citing State v. Richards, 109 Wash.App. 648, 653 , 36 P.3d 1119 (2001)). 2008App. 86, 90 , 84 P.3d 283 (2004) (citing State v. Richards, 109 Wn.	2	2008–2008
State v. Carter green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2007State v. Carter, 151 Wn.2d 118, 129-30 , 85 P.3d 887 (2004). ¶7 Carter then brought a Knapstad motion to dismiss on the ground that the rifle did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it did not have a “ ‘reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.’ ” CP at 52 (quoting RCW 9.41.010(7)). 2007State v. Carter, 151 Wash.2d 118, 129-30 , 85 P.3d 887 (2004). ¶ 7 Carter then brought a Knapstad motion to dismiss on the ground that the rifle did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it did not have a "`reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.'" CP at 52 (quoting RCW 9.41.010(7)).	2	2007–2007
State v. Carter green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2007State v. Carter, 151 Wn.2d 118, 129-30 , 85 P.3d 887 (2004). ¶7 Carter then brought a Knapstad motion to dismiss on the ground that the rifle did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it did not have a “ ‘reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.’ ” CP at 52 (quoting RCW 9.41.010(7)). 2007State v. Carter, 151 Wash.2d 118, 129-30 , 85 P.3d 887 (2004). ¶ 7 Carter then brought a Knapstad motion to dismiss on the ground that the rifle did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it did not have a "`reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.'" CP at 52 (quoting RCW 9.41.010(7)).	2	2007–2007
State v. Snedden neutral washctapp · 2002 2 sentences 2004App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affd, 149 Wn.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wn.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion “does not include deciding whose version of events is correct,” but concerns whether the State has established “a prima facie case of guilt”). 2004"An appellate court will uphold the trial court's dismissal of a charge pursuant to a Knapstad motion if no rational finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime." State v. Snedden, 112 Wash.App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affirmed, 149 Wash.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wash.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion "does not include deciding whose version of events is correct," but concerns whether the State has established "a prima facie case of guilt.").	2	2004–2004
State v. Snedden green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2004App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affd, 149 Wn.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wn.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion “does not include deciding whose version of events is correct,” but concerns whether the State has established “a prima facie case of guilt”). 2004"An appellate court will uphold the trial court's dismissal of a charge pursuant to a Knapstad motion if no rational finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime." State v. Snedden, 112 Wash.App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affirmed, 149 Wash.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wash.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion "does not include deciding whose version of events is correct," but concerns whether the State has established "a prima facie case of guilt.").	2	2004–2004
State v. Snedden green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2004App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affd, 149 Wn.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wn.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion “does not include deciding whose version of events is correct,” but concerns whether the State has established “a prima facie case of guilt”). 2004"An appellate court will uphold the trial court's dismissal of a charge pursuant to a Knapstad motion if no rational finder of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime." State v. Snedden, 112 Wash.App. 122, 127 , 47 P.3d 184 (2002), affirmed, 149 Wash.2d 914 , 73 P.3d 995 (2003); see also State v. Groom, 133 Wash.2d 679, 693 , 947 P.2d 240 (1997) (appellate review of a Knapstad motion "does not include deciding whose version of events is correct," but concerns whether the State has established "a prima facie case of guilt.").	2	2004–2004
State v. Wilhelm green washctapp · 1995	2	2002–2002
Crawford v. Washington green scotus · 2004	1	2020–2020
Brady v. Maryland green scotus · 1963	1	2020–2020
State v. Graham neutral washctapp · 2014	1	2018–2018
Adcox v. Children's Orthopedic Hospital & Medical Center green wash · 1993	1	2017–2017
State v. Powell green washctapp · 2014	1	2017–2017
State v. Pettit green wash · 1913	1	2016–2016
State v. Heath green washctapp · 2012	1	2016–2016
State v. Joy green wash · 1993	1	2016–2016
State v. Vasquez green wash · 2013	1	2015–2015
State v. Thomas green wash · 2004	1	2015–2015
State v. Camp green fla · 1992	1	2014–2014
State v. Veliz green wash · 2013	1	2014–2014
State v. Justesen neutral washctapp · 2004	1	2014–2014
State v. Vazquez green washctapp · 1992	1	2013–2013
State v. Stinton green washctapp · 2004	1	2012–2012
State v. Kennedy green wash · 1986	1	2011–2011
State v. Hickman green washctapp · 2010	1	2011–2011
State v. Hickman green washctapp · 2010	1	2011–2011
State v. Carter neutral washctapp · 2007	1	2008–2008
Matter of Personal Restraint of Sietz green wash · 1994	1	1999–1999
State v. Jackson green wash · 1984	1	1994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (20) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.020 (10) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.110 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.010 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.41.010 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.010 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.031 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.083 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.020 (6)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check