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 1997–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2024State v. Reep, 161 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 167 P.3d 1156 (2007); see also State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 753 , 24 P.3d 1006 (“Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1000 (2001). 2007STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶[12 “Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo.” State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 753 , 24 P.3d 1006 (2001). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2024State v. Reep, 161 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 167 P.3d 1156 (2007); see also State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 753 , 24 P.3d 1006 (“Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1000 (2001). 2007STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶[12 “Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo.” State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 753 , 24 P.3d 1006 (2001). | 3 | 6 |
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Bradley Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Brownlow and Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Mealeygreen1 sentence2024State v. Reep, 161 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 167 P.3d 1156 (2007); see also State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 753 , 24 P.3d 1006 (“Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1000 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Perrone
green
2 sentences2018State v. Perrone, 119 Wash.2d 538 , 549, 834 P.2d 611 (1992). 2018State v. Perrone, 119 Wash.2d 538 , 549, 834 P.2d 611 (1992). | 3 | 1997–2018 |
State v. Stenson
green
2 sentences2013"Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo." State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668,691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997). 2001State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1008 (1998). | 3 | 2001–2013 |
State v. Stenson
green
2 sentences2013"Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo." State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668,691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997). 2001State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1008 (1998). | 3 | 2001–2013 |
State v. Reep
neutral
2 sentences2024State v. Reep, 161 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 167 P.3d 1156 (2007); see also State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 753 , 24 P.3d 1006 (“Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1000 (2001). 2016State v. Reep, 161 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 167 46 45724-5-II / 46300-8-II P.3d 1156 (2007). | 2 | 2016–2024 |
State v. Riley
green
2 sentences2007ANALYSIS ¶13 “The Fourth Amendment mandates that warrants describe with particularity the things to be seized.” State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 28 , 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). 2007ANALYSIS ¶13 “The Fourth Amendment mandates that warrants describe with particularity the things to be seized.” State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 28 , 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Teel v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2001State v. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d 668, 691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1008 , 118 S.Ct. 1193 , 140 L.Ed.2d 323 (1998). 2001State v. Stenson, 132 Wn.2d 668, 691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1008 (1998). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Reep
green
1 sentence2024State v. Reep, 161 Wn.2d 808, 813 , 167 P.3d 1156 (2007); see also State v. Clark, 143 Wn.2d 731, 753 , 24 P.3d 1006 (“Whether a warrant meets the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is reviewed de novo.”), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1000 (2001). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Besola
green
1 sentence2018In Besola, the Washington Supreme Court held the citation to a statute did not "modify or limit the items listed in the warrant" that "contained broad descriptions of the items to be seized." Besola, 184 Wn.2d at 609-10 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Garcia Perez v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2001State v. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d 668, 691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1008 , 118 S.Ct. 1193 , 140 L.Ed.2d 323 (1998). 2001State v. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d 668, 691 , 940 P.2d 1239 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1008 , 118 S.Ct. 1193 , 140 L.Ed.2d 323 (1998). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.