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.
14 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
In RE DETENTION OF ELMORE v. Stategreen2 sentences2007App. 402 , 139 P.3d 1140 (2006) (no retroactive application when the court applied amendments that clarified the legislature’s definition of the change required for a new SVP hearing), review granted, 152 Wn.2d 1025 (2007); Shelter Am. 2007App. 402 , 139 P.3d 1140 (2006) (no retroactive application when the court applied amendments that clarified the legislature’s definition of the change required for a new SVP hearing), review granted, 152 Wn.2d 1025 (2007); Shelter Am. | 1 | 2 |
In re the Detention of Ambersgreen1 sentence2011See Ambers, 160 Wash.2d at 548-49 , 158 P.3d 1144 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Detention of Ambersgreen1 sentence2011See Ambers, 160 Wash.2d at 548-49 , 158 P.3d 1144 . | 1 | 1 |
Sherry v. Financial Indem. Co.green2 sentences2007See e.g., In re Detention of Elmore v. State, 134 Wash.App. 402 , 139 P.3d 1140 (2006), (no retroactive application when the court applied amendments that clarified the legislature's definition of the change required for a new SVP hearing) ( review granted, No. 79208-9, 158 Wash.2d 1025 , 152 P.3d 347 (Jan. 3, 2007)); Shelter America Corp. v. Ohio Cas. and Ins. 2007See e.g., In re Detention of Elmore v. State, 134 Wash.App. 402 , 139 P.3d 1140 (2006), (no retroactive application when the court applied amendments that clarified the legislature's definition of the change required for a new SVP hearing) ( review granted, No. 79208-9, 158 Wash.2d 1025 , 152 P.3d 347 (Jan. 3, 2007)); Shelter America Corp. v. Ohio Cas. and Ins. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Detention of Elmoregreen2 sentences2007See e.g., In re Detention of Elmore v. State, 134 Wash.App. 402 , 139 P.3d 1140 (2006), (no retroactive application when the court applied amendments that clarified the legislature's definition of the change required for a new SVP hearing) ( review granted, No. 79208-9, 158 Wash.2d 1025 , 152 P.3d 347 (Jan. 3, 2007)); Shelter America Corp. v. Ohio Cas. and Ins. 2007See e.g., In re Detention of Elmore v. State, 134 Wash.App. 402 , 139 P.3d 1140 (2006), (no retroactive application when the court applied amendments that clarified the legislature's definition of the change required for a new SVP hearing) ( review granted, No. 79208-9, 158 Wash.2d 1025 , 152 P.3d 347 (Jan. 3, 2007)); Shelter America Corp. v. Ohio Cas. and Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Shelter America Corp. v. Ohio Casualty & Insurance Co.green2 sentences2007Co., 745 P.2d 843, 845-46 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (a court could apply a statute including mobile homes in the definition of "motor vehicles" because the law merely clarified the meaning of motor vehicle from an earlier statute.). 2007Co., 745 P.2d 843, 845-46 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (a court could apply a statute including mobile homes in the definition of "motor vehicles" because the law merely clarified the meaning of motor vehicle from an earlier statute.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Detention of Greenwood
green
2 sentences2024App. 277 , 122 P.3d 747 (2005), Ross argues the initial SVP hearing for this class of persons should include the same rights as criminal trials because the “intent” of the statute [is] “to protect Ross’ liberty.” However, that argument overstates the intent of the hearing and conflicts with this court’s holding that “the requirement of the initial hearing is not an end in itself as with a criminal trial, but a part of a two-step process designed to protect incompetent individuals.” Greenwood, 130 Wn. 2024App. 277 , 122 P.3d 747 (2005), Ross argues the initial SVP hearing for this class of persons should include the same rights as criminal trials because the “intent” of the statute [is] “to protect Ross’ liberty.” However, that argument overstates the intent of the hearing and conflicts with this court’s holding that “the requirement of the initial hearing is not an end in itself as with a criminal trial, but a part of a two-step process designed to protect incompetent individuals.” Greenwood, 130 Wn. | 3 | 2011–2024 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of Young
red
2 sentences2009Young, 122 Wn.2d at 26 . 2009Young, 122 Wn.2d at 26 . | 3 | 2009–2009 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences2009Thus, the admission of coerced statements in an SVP hearing violates the defendant’s due process rights. ¶49 The United States Supreme Court has held an individual’s due process protection against the use of a coerced confession required the use of procedures “fully adequate to insure a reliable and clear-cut determination of the voluntariness of the confession, including the resolution of disputed facts upon which the voluntariness issue may depend.” Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 391 , 84 S. Ct. 1774 , 12 L. 2009Thus, the admission of coerced statements in an SVP hearing violates the defendant’s due process rights. ¶49 The United States Supreme Court has held an individual’s due process protection against the use of a coerced confession required the use of procedures “fully adequate to insure a reliable and clear-cut determination of the voluntariness of the confession, including the resolution of disputed facts upon which the voluntariness issue may depend.” Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 391 , 84 S. Ct. 1774 , 12 L. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State ex rel. K.M. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources
green
2 sentences2007Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 212 W.Va. 783, 793 , 575 S.E.2d 393 (2002). ¶ 36 I part company with the majority, however, in severing confrontation and cross-examination in analyzing what process is due an SVP defendant. 2007Va. 783, 793 , 575 S.E.2d 393 (2002). f 36 I part company with the majority, however, in severing confrontation and cross-examination in analyzing what process is due an SVP defendant. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Detention of Greenwood
green
2 sentences2024App. 277 , 122 P.3d 747 (2005), Ross argues the initial SVP hearing for this class of persons should include the same rights as criminal trials because the “intent” of the statute [is] “to protect Ross’ liberty.” However, that argument overstates the intent of the hearing and conflicts with this court’s holding that “the requirement of the initial hearing is not an end in itself as with a criminal trial, but a part of a two-step process designed to protect incompetent individuals.” Greenwood, 130 Wn. 2024App. 277 , 122 P.3d 747 (2005), Ross argues the initial SVP hearing for this class of persons should include the same rights as criminal trials because the “intent” of the statute [is] “to protect Ross’ liberty.” However, that argument overstates the intent of the hearing and conflicts with this court’s holding that “the requirement of the initial hearing is not an end in itself as with a criminal trial, but a part of a two-step process designed to protect incompetent individuals.” Greenwood, 130 Wn. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Det. of McHatton
green
2 sentences2021Any final order made after judgment that affects a substantial right.” With regard to RAP 2.2(a)(8), the court concluded that, “regardless of whether a person is in total confinement or in an LRA, they remain a ‘committed person’ under the statute.” McHatton, 485 P.3d at 324 . 2021Any final order made after judgment that affects a substantial right.” With regard to RAP 2.2(a)(8), the court concluded that, “regardless of whether a person is in total confinement or in an LRA, they remain a ‘committed person’ under the statute.” McHatton, 485 P.3d at 324 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Detention of Post
green
2 sentences2011Id. ¶ 7 Mr. Coe first raises challenges to the admission of evidence at the SVP hearing. 2011Id. ¶ 7 Mr. Coe first raises challenges to the admission of evidence at the SVP hearing. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re the Detention of Post
green
2 sentences2011Id. ¶7 Mr. Coe first raises challenges to the admission of evidence at the SVP hearing. 2011Id. ¶7 Mr. Coe first raises challenges to the admission of evidence at the SVP hearing. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.