first prong test in Washington

100 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 9 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 (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Vickersgreen wash · 2002 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2021 2 sentences 2021Mr. Birch fails to meet his burden under the first prong of the analysis.” Id. (citing Vickers, 148 Wn.2d at 118 ). 2009See Vickers II, 148 Wn.2d at 118 .	2	3
State v. Sublettgreen wash · 2012 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014The first prong of this test is the " experience" prong, which requires us to examine whether the core values of the public trial right are implicated." Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 . 2014The first prong of this test is the " experience" prong, which requires us to examine whether the core values of the public trial right are implicated." Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 .	2	2
Valenti v. Home Lines Cruises, Inc.green njd · 1984 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Ward, 273 F.3d at 523 ; Valenti v. Home Lines Cruises, Inc., 614 F.Supp. 1, 5 (D.N.J.1984). ¶ 36 Considerations under the first prong of this test include the conspicuousness of the clause at issue, font size, clarity of the term, and the ease with which a passenger can read the provisions. 2008Ward, 273 F.3d at 523 ; Valenti v. Home Lines Cruises, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 1, 5 (D.N.J. 1984). ¶36 Considerations under the first prong of this test include the conspicuousness of the clause at issue, font size, clarity of the term, and the ease with which a passenger can read the provisions.	2	2
Ravin v. Stategreen alaska · 1975 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	2	2
State v. Acklesgreen wash · 1894 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997	2	2
State v. Kjorsvikgreen wash · 1991 · cited in 10 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1995–2018 2 sentences 2018When an appellant raises such a challenge, the proper standard of review is the two- pronged test set forth in State v. Kiorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 106 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991):"The standard of review we here adopt will require at least some language in the information giving notice of the allegedly missing element(s) and if the language is vague, an inquiry may be required Into whether there was actual prejudice to the defendant." -36- No. 77930-3-1/37 A charging document satisfies the first prong of this test by setting forth all of the essential elements of the crime charged. 2018When an appellant raises such a challenge, the proper standard of review is the two- pronged test set forth in State v. Kiorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 106 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991):"The standard of review we here adopt will require at least some language in the information giving notice of the allegedly missing element(s) and if the language is vague, an inquiry may be required Into whether there was actual prejudice to the defendant." -36- No. 77930-3-1/37 A charging document satisfies the first prong of this test by setting forth all of the essential elements of the crime charged.	1	10
United States v. Bagleygreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011However, the third prong of Brady only requires the defendant to show the less exacting standard of "reasonable probability," which does not require a defendant to demonstrate that "the evidence if disclosed probably would have resulted in acquittal." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 680 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (emphasis added); Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 . 2011However, the third prong of Brady only requires the defendant to show the less exacting standard of "reasonable probability," which does not require a defendant to demonstrate that "the evidence if disclosed probably would have resulted in acquittal." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 680 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (emphasis added); Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 .	1	2
Wallis v. Princess Cruises, Inc.green ca9 · 2002 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Wallis, 306 F.3d at 836 . ¶ 37 Here, the index to the travel documents lists "contract" and directs the passenger to read it. 2008Wallis, 306 F.3d at 836. ¶37 Here, the index to the travel documents lists "contract” and directs the passenger to read it.	1	2
Weden v. San Juan Countygreen wash · 1998 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	2
In Re the Marriage of Matsongreen wash · 1986 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024	1	1
Gradinaru v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen washctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016	1	1
Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, a Corporation, and Harbor Belt Line, a Partnershipgreen ca9 · 1982 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014	1	1
State v. Vickersgreen wash · 2002 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	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 (67)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Workman green wash · 1978 2 sentences 2025Workman, 90 Wn.2d at 447-48 . 2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat	6	2015–2025
State v. McCarty green wash · 2000 2 sentences 2013If the defendant satisfies the first prong of the test, “we presume prejudice and reverse without reaching the question of prejudice.” McCarty, 140 Wn.2d at 425 (citing Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d at 105-06 ). ¶17 Under the first prong of the Kjorsvik test, we look solely to the face of the information to determine if the essential elements of the crime appear in any form, or by fair construction, in the charging document. 117 Wn.2d at 105 . 2013If the defendant satisfies the first prong of the test, "we presume prejudice and reverse without reaching the question of prejudice." McCarty, 140 Wn.2d at 425 (citing Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d at 105-06 ).	6	2013–2022
State v. Thomas green wash · 1987 2 sentences 2003In determining whether a defendant has met the first prong of this test, “scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly deferential and courts will indulge in a strong presumption of reasonableness.” Thomas, 109 Wn.2d at 226 . 2003In determining whether a defendant has met the first prong of this test, "scrutiny of counsel's performance is highly deferential and courts will indulge in a strong presumption of reasonableness." Thomas, 109 Wash.2d at 226 , 743 P.2d 816 .	6	2000–2005
State v. Berlin green wash · 1997 2 sentences 2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat 1999The first prong of the test is referred to as the “legal prong” and the second prong of the test is referred *887 to as the “factual prong.” Berlin, 133 Wn.2d at 546 .	4	1999–2019
State v. Condon green wash · 2015 2 sentences 2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat 2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat	4	2018–2019
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2019Id. at 697 . 2005Thomas, 109 Wash.2d at 226 , 743 P.2d 816 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).	3	2004–2019
HTK Management, L.L.C. v. Seattle Popular Monorail Authority green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2018In Monorail, the property owner argued the “decision to condemn a fee interest in the entire property should be analyzed under the first prong of the test for ‘public use,’ rather than under the third prong of the test for ‘necessity.’ “ Monorail, 155 Wn.2d at 630 . 2014Monorail, 155 Wn.2d at 633 . ¶43 The property owner argued that the “decision to condemn a fee interest in the entire property should be analyzed under the first prong of the test for ‘public use,’ rather than under the third prong of the test for ‘necessity.’ ” Monorail, 155 Wn.2d at 630 .	3	2014–2018
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riverside green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2014The second prong of the test is the " logic" prong, which requires us to determine "` whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question. "' Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 ( quoting Press -Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S. 5 Although only four justices signed the lead opinion in Sublett, Justice Stephens' s concurrence created amajority who adopted the " experience and logic" test. 176 Wn.2d at 136 ( Stephens, J., concurring). 2011II, 478 U.S. at 9 (quoting Press-Enter. 1, 464 U.S. at 510 ). ¶33 The News Tribune contends that under the first prong of the test, the “place” and the “process” in this case have historically been open to the public, arguing that the “place” is the courtroom and the “process” is one where the judge was present, presided over the proceedings, and made rulings on evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness in the courtroom. ¶34 As explained above, however, the only reason the deposition occurred in a courtroom is because the prosecuting attorney selected it for the convenience of the staf	3	2011–2014
State v. McFarland green wash · 1995 2 sentences 2026McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 335 . 2024State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995).	2	2024–2026
State v. Berlin green wash · 1997 2 sentences 2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat 2019Because this decision was based on a factual determination, it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.22 We review the evidence in 18 State v. Tamalini, 134 Wn.2d 725, 728 , 953 P.2d 450 (1998). v. Henderson, 182 Wn.2d 734, 742 , 344 P.3d 1207 (2015)(quoting 19 State State v. Workman, 90 Wn.2d 443, 447-48 , 584 P.2d 382 (1978)). 29 State v. Berlin, 133 Wn.2d 541, 546 , 947 P.2d 700 (1997). 21 Id. 22 State v. Condon, 182 Wn.2d 307, 315-16 , 343 P.3d 357 (2015). 8 No. 77355-1-1/9 the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.23 If substantial evidence in the record supports a rat	2	2003–2019
Mukilteo Citizens v. City of Mukilteo green wash · 2012 2 sentences 2015The first prong of the test for associational standing is whether the individual members of the group have individual standing. 16 Id. 2015The first prong of the test for associational standing is whether the individual members of the group have individual standing. 16 Id.	2	2015–2015
Language Connection, LLC v. Employment Security Department neutral washctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2015Dep't, 149 Wn. 2015Dep’t, 149 Wn.	2	2015–2015
State v. Goodman green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2012Goodman, 150 Wn.2d at 788 . 2012Goodman, 150 Wash.2d at 788 , 83 P.3d 410 .	2	2012–2012
State v. Cameron green washctapp · 1981 2 sentences 2011State v. Osborne, 102 Wash.2d 87, 99 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (quoting State v. Cameron, 30 Wash. App. 229, 232 , 633 P.2d 901 , review denied, 96 Wash.2d 1023 , 1981 WL 191072 (1981)). ¶ 8 Appellate review of counsel's performance starts from a strong presumption of reasonableness. 2011State v. Osborne, 102 Wash.2d 87, 99 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (quoting State v. Cameron, 30 Wash. App. 229, 232 , 633 P.2d 901 , review denied, 96 Wash.2d 1023 , 1981 WL 191072 (1981)). ¶ 8 Appellate review of counsel's performance starts from a strong presumption of reasonableness.	2	2011–2011
Kyles v. Whitley green scotus · 1995 2 sentences 2011However, the third prong of Brady only requires the defendant to show the less exacting standard of "reasonable probability," which does not require a defendant to demonstrate that "the evidence if disclosed probably would have resulted in acquittal." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 680 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (emphasis added); Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 . 2011However, the third prong of Brady only requires the defendant to show the less exacting standard of "reasonable probability," which does not require a defendant to demonstrate that "the evidence if disclosed probably would have resulted in acquittal." Bagley, 473 U.S. at 680 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 (opinion of Blackmun, J.) (emphasis added); Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 .	2	2011–2011
State v. Osborne green wash · 1984 2 sentences 2011State v. Osborne, 102 Wash.2d 87, 99 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (quoting State v. Cameron, 30 Wash. App. 229, 232 , 633 P.2d 901 , review denied, 96 Wash.2d 1023 , 1981 WL 191072 (1981)). ¶ 8 Appellate review of counsel's performance starts from a strong presumption of reasonableness. 2011State v. Osborne, 102 Wash.2d 87, 99 , 684 P.2d 683 (1984) (quoting State v. Cameron, 30 Wash. App. 229, 232 , 633 P.2d 901 , review denied, 96 Wash.2d 1023 , 1981 WL 191072 (1981)). ¶ 8 Appellate review of counsel's performance starts from a strong presumption of reasonableness.	2	2011–2011
State v. MacOn green wash · 1996 2 sentences 2011The first prong of the analysis for newly discovered evidence requires the defendant to show that the new evidence "will probably change the result of the trial." Id. (emphasis added). 2011The first prong of the analysis for newly discovered evidence requires the defendant to show that the new evidence “will probably change the result of the trial.” Id. (emphasis added).	2	2011–2011
Korslund v. DynCorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc. green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2009Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Servs., 156 Wash.2d 168, 181 , 125 P.3d 119 (2005). 2009Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Servs., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 168, 181 , 125 P.2d 119 (2005).	2	2009–2009
Penick v. Employment Security Department green washctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2009Penick, 82 Wash.App. at 39 , 917 P.2d 136 ; Cascade Nursing Servs., Ltd. v. Employment Sec. 2009Penick, 82 Wn.	2	2009–2009
Debra Ward v. Cross Sound Ferry green ca2 · 2001 2 sentences 2008Ward, 273 F.3d at 523 ; Valenti v. Home Lines Cruises, Inc., 614 F.Supp. 1, 5 (D.N.J.1984). ¶ 36 Considerations under the first prong of this test include the conspicuousness of the clause at issue, font size, clarity of the term, and the ease with which a passenger can read the provisions. 2008Ward, 273 F.3d at 523 ; Valenti v. Home Lines Cruises, Inc., 614 F. Supp. 1, 5 (D.N.J. 1984). ¶36 Considerations under the first prong of this test include the conspicuousness of the clause at issue, font size, clarity of the term, and the ease with which a passenger can read the provisions.	2	2008–2008
Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2007Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wn.2d 622, 642 , 71 P.3d 644 (2003). 2007Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wash.2d 622, 642 , 71 P.3d 644 (2003).	2	2007–2007
Citizens for Resp. Wildlife Mgmt. v. State green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2007Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wn.2d 622, 642 , 71 P.3d 644 (2003). 2007Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wash.2d 622, 642 , 71 P.3d 644 (2003).	2	2007–2007
Blockburger v. United States green scotus · 1931 2 sentences 2006Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. 2006Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L.	2	2006–2006
City of Tacoma v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. green wash · 1960	2	2005–2005
State v. Lynn green washctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2005Within the meaning of RAP 2.5, “manifest” means “unmistakable, evident or indisputable.” Lynn, 67 Wn. 2005Within the meaning of RAP 2.5, "manifest" means "unmistakable, evident or indisputable." Lynn, 67 Wash.App. at 345 , 835 P.2d 251 .	2	2005–2005
State v. Smith green wash · 1984	2	2004–2004
Lawton v. Steele green scotus · 1894	2	2003–2003
State v. Michielli green wash · 1997	2	2001–2001
State v. Blackwell green wash · 1993	2	2001–2001
State v. Sargent green washctapp · 1985	1	2021–2021
State v. Tamalini green wash · 1998	1	2019–2019
State v. Tamalini green wash · 1998	1	2019–2019
State v. Henderson green wash · 2015	1	2019–2019
State v. Hayes green washctapp · 1996	1	2018–2018
State v. Linares green washctapp · 1999	1	2018–2018
State Of Washington v. Samuel Lee Irwin green washctapp · 2015	1	2017–2017
State v. Love green wash · 2015	1	2016–2016
State v. Thompson neutral wash · 2017	1	2016–2016
Diversified Industries Development Corp. v. Ripley green wash · 1973	1	2016–2016
Lindsey v. Washington green scotus · 1937	1	2015–2015

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (14) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.61.006 (10) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.021 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.533 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.020 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.050 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.101 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.401 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.28.040 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 450 (1982–2026) OH 227 (1980–2026) CA 162 (1982–2026) IL 137 (1983–2026) NY 127 (1969–2026) GA 105 (1975–2026) WA 100 (1982–2026) NJ 95 (1985–2026) CT 93 (1981–2025) PA 91 (1975–2026) FL 71 (1981–2025) IA 65 (1983–2024) MI 57 (1977–2026) TN 49 (1991–2025) NM 48 (1988–2026) AL 46 (1985–2024) MA 41 (1982–2023) IN 41 (1988–2024) MO 38 (1984–2016) RI 36 (1987–2017) NC 35 (1984–2024) NH 35 (1988–2025) UT 35 (1983–2025) MS 31 (1992–2024) WI 31 (1978–2025) KS 30 (1978–2024) MT 29 (1985–2023) KY 28 (1993–2026) VA 26 (1986–2026) VT 26 (1988–2025) CO 25 (1973–2026) HI 23 (1981–2024) LA 21 (1991–2025) MD 18 (1988–2024) SD 18 (1976–2025) MN 16 (1977–2024) OR 16 (1996–2021) AZ 14 (1983–2020) ME 14 (1984–2023) DC 13 (1978–2025) ND 12 (1980–2024) NE 12 (1985–2018) SC 12 (1992–2015) AK 11 (1975–2023) OK 9 (1986–2021) WV 9 (1991–2018) ID 7 (1989–2020) WY 7 (1991–2025) NV 6 (1996–2021) AR 5 (2003–2024) DE 5 (2018–2025) VI 4 (2007–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check