13 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2022 3 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. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2010Id.', see State v. Gonzalez, 129 Wn. 2010Id.; see State v. Gonzalez, 129 Wash.App. 895, 905 , 120 P.3d 645 (2005) (stating that where "juror views of restrained defendants are inevitable in this county ... then it is the transport procedures which must change, not the constitutional presumption of innocence"). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2010Id.; see State v. Gonzalez, 129 Wash.App. 895, 905 , 120 P.3d 645 (2005) (stating that where "juror views of restrained defendants are inevitable in this county ... then it is the transport procedures which must change, not the constitutional presumption of innocence"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 519 . 2021Id. at 519 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Linton
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 787-89, 132 P.3d 127 . 2006Id. at 787-89 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake
green
2 sentences2004In Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wash.2d 702 , 42 P.3d 394 (2002) ( Grant County I ), this court held that the petition method of annexation affords an impermissible privilege to owners of highly valued land, and therefore violates article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution. 2004In Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wn.2d 702 , 42 P.3d 394 (2002) (Grant County I), this court held that the petition method of annexation affords an impermissible privilege to owners of highly valued land, and therefore violates article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake
green
2 sentences2004In Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wash.2d 702 , 42 P.3d 394 (2002) ( Grant County I ), this court held that the petition method of annexation affords an impermissible privilege to owners of highly valued land, and therefore violates article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution. 2004In Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wn.2d 702 , 42 P.3d 394 (2002) (Grant County I), this court held that the petition method of annexation affords an impermissible privilege to owners of highly valued land, and therefore violates article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2022Fanning asserts first that the State “has no standing to object to a jury instruction on the ground[s] that it creates an impermissible presumption” and second, because Rosa’s actions were “unquestionably a completed burglary, not an attempted burglary” the court’s reliance on State v. Jackson, 112 Wn.2d 867 , 774 P.2d 1211 (1989), was misplaced. 2022Fanning asserts first that the State “has no standing to object to a jury instruction on the ground[s] that it creates an impermissible presumption” and second, because Rosa’s actions were “unquestionably a completed burglary, not an attempted burglary” the court’s reliance on State v. Jackson, 112 Wn.2d 867 , 774 P.2d 1211 (1989), was misplaced. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries
neutral
1 sentence2011Lockheed, 56 Wn. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake
green
1 sentence2004In Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash.2d 791 , 83 P.3d 419 (2004) ( Grant County II ), the Court considered whether the petition method of annexation affords an impermissible privilege to owners of highly *318 valued land such that it violates art. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
GRANT CTY. FIRE PROT. DIST. v. City of Moses Lake
green
1 sentence2004In Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash.2d 791 , 83 P.3d 419 (2004) ( Grant County II ), the Court considered whether the petition method of annexation affords an impermissible privilege to owners of highly *318 valued land such that it violates art. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences1983Davis also argues that State v. Allen, 67 Wn.2d 238 , 406 P.2d 950 (1965), which addressed the issue of the voluntariness of a confession by a mentally ill defendant, creates an impermissible presumption of waiver and therefore must not be followed. 1983Davis also argues that State v. Allen, 67 Wn.2d 238 , 406 P.2d 950 (1965), which addressed the issue of the voluntariness of a confession by a mentally ill defendant, creates an impermissible presumption of waiver and therefore must not be followed. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Mullaney v. Wilbur
green
2 sentences1978Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L. 1978Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , 44 L. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.