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.
13 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hickman
green
2 sentences2020In State v. Hickman, our Supreme Court determined that “a defendant may assign error [on appeal] to elements added under the law of the case doctrine.” 12 Under the law of the case doctrine, jury instructions not objected to become the 8 Id. at 8. 911 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 37.04 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). 10 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 308 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 11 State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284, 293 , 830 P.2d 641 (1992). 12 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). 4 No. 79043-9-I/5 law of the case.13 In Hickman, “the State acquiesced to ju 2006A defendant may assign error to elements added under the law of the case doctrine, and that assignment “may include a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence of the added element.” State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). | 8 | 2006–2026 |
State v. Ng
green
2 sentences2023Hickman, 135 Wn.2d at 102 (citing State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32, 39 , 750 P.2d 632 (1988)). 2023Hickman, 135 Wn.2d at 102 (citing State v. Ng, 110 Wn.2d 32, 39 , 750 P.2d 632 (1988)). | 4 | 1998–2023 |
State v. Hickman
green
2 sentences2020In State v. Hickman, our Supreme Court determined that “a defendant may assign error [on appeal] to elements added under the law of the case doctrine.” 12 Under the law of the case doctrine, jury instructions not objected to become the 8 Id. at 8. 911 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 37.04 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). 10 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 308 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 11 State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284, 293 , 830 P.2d 641 (1992). 12 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). 4 No. 79043-9-I/5 law of the case.13 In Hickman, “the State acquiesced to ju 2006A defendant may assign error to elements added under the law of the case doctrine, and that assignment “may include a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence of the added element.” State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). | 4 | 2006–2020 |
State v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2020In State v. Hickman, our Supreme Court determined that “a defendant may assign error [on appeal] to elements added under the law of the case doctrine.” 12 Under the law of the case doctrine, jury instructions not objected to become the 8 Id. at 8. 911 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 37.04 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). 10 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 308 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 11 State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284, 293 , 830 P.2d 641 (1992). 12 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). 4 No. 79043-9-I/5 law of the case.13 In Hickman, “the State acquiesced to ju | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Handburgh
green
2 sentences2020In State v. Hickman, our Supreme Court determined that “a defendant may assign error [on appeal] to elements added under the law of the case doctrine.” 12 Under the law of the case doctrine, jury instructions not objected to become the 8 Id. at 8. 911 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 37.04 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). 10 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 308 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 11 State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284, 293 , 830 P.2d 641 (1992). 12 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). 4 No. 79043-9-I/5 law of the case.13 In Hickman, “the State acquiesced to ju 2020In State v. Hickman, our Supreme Court determined that “a defendant may assign error [on appeal] to elements added under the law of the case doctrine.” 12 Under the law of the case doctrine, jury instructions not objected to become the 8 Id. at 8. 911 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 37.04 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). 10 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 308 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 11 State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284, 293 , 830 P.2d 641 (1992). 12 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). 4 No. 79043-9-I/5 law of the case.13 In Hickman, “the State acquiesced to ju | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2020In State v. Hickman, our Supreme Court determined that “a defendant may assign error [on appeal] to elements added under the law of the case doctrine.” 12 Under the law of the case doctrine, jury instructions not objected to become the 8 Id. at 8. 911 W ASHINGTON PRACTICE: W ASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 37.04 (4th ed. 2016) (WPIC). 10 State v. Bennett, 161 Wn.2d 303, 308 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 11 State v. Handburgh, 119 Wn.2d 284, 293 , 830 P.2d 641 (1992). 12 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998). 4 No. 79043-9-I/5 law of the case.13 In Hickman, “the State acquiesced to ju | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Levy
green
1 sentence2016State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 719-20 , 132 P.3d 1076 (2006). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Levy
green
1 sentence2016State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 719-20 , 132 P.3d 1076 (2006). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences2014In such case, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is to be determined by the application of the instructions . . . .[38] Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.39 "Retrial 35id at 102. 36 id 37 id 38 id at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). 39 State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980). 10 No. 69614-9-1/11 following 2014In such case, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is to be determined by the application of the instructions . . . .[38] Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.39 "Retrial 35id at 102. 36 id 37 id 38 id at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). 39 State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980). 10 No. 69614-9-1/11 following | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Ortega
green
1 sentence2014App. 617, 622 , 142 P.3d 175 (2006), review denied, 160 Wn.2d 1016 (2007). 18 jdL (quoting State v. Hickman, 135 Wn.2d 97, 102 , 954 P.2d 900 (1998)). 10 No. 71966-1-1/11 In State v. Ortega, this court considered whether a limiting instruction prevented the jury from considering a stipulation regarding prior convictions.19 There, the parties agreed that "prior convictions were elements that had to be proved to the jury."20 Consequently, the State "introduced proof in the form of a stipulation informing the jury that [Reynaldo] Ortega had been convicted in 1997 on two counts of protection order | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Tonkovich v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2014In such case, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is to be determined by the application of the instructions . . . .[38] Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.39 "Retrial 35id at 102. 36 id 37 id 38 id at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). 39 State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980). 10 No. 69614-9-1/11 following 2014In such case, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is to be determined by the application of the instructions . . . .[38] Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.39 "Retrial 35id at 102. 36 id 37 id 38 id at 103 (quoting Tonkovich v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 31 Wn.2d 220, 225 , 195 P.2d 638 (1948)). 39 State v. Green, 94 Wn.2d 216, 221 , 616 P.2d 628 (1980). 10 No. 69614-9-1/11 following | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Ortega
green
1 sentence2014"Jury instructions, when not objected to, become the law of the case."17 "A defendant may assign error to elements added under the law of the case doctrine, and that assignment 'may include a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence of the added element.'"18 17 State v. Ortega, 134 Wn. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.