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 2013–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lesley v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2021See Lesley v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 83 Wn. App. 263, 275 , 921 P.2d 1066 (1996) (summary judgment on qualified immunity reversed because questions of fact existed as to whether caseworker followed proper procedures in removing child from parental custody). 2021See Lesley v. Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 83 Wn. App. 263, 275 , 921 P.2d 1066 (1996) (summary judgment on qualified immunity reversed because questions of fact existed as to whether caseworker followed proper procedures in removing child from parental custody). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. Smith
green
2 sentences2020Hellberg, 66 Wn.2d at 668 ; Roberts, 41 Wn. App. at 865 . 2013Hellberg, 66 Wn.2d at 668 ; Roberts, 41 Wn. | 3 | 2013–2020 |
Hellberg v. Coffin Sheep Co.
green
2 sentences2020Hellberg, 66 Wn.2d at 668 ; Roberts, 41 Wn. App. at 865 . 2013Hellberg, 66 Wn.2d at 668 ; Roberts, 41 Wn. | 2 | 2013–2020 |
McPhaden v. Scott
green
2 sentences2017App. 431, 437 , 975 P.2d 1033 (1999). 2017The first factor is required, while the second and third factors are treated as “aids to determining the presumed intent of the parties as disclosed by the extent and character of the use, the nature of the property, and the relation of the separated parts to each other.” McPhaden v. Scott, 95 Wn. | 2 | 2013–2017 |
State v. Pirtle
green
1 sentence2025“The second and third factors can be further combined as -8- evidence of planning.” Id. “[A] wide range of proven facts will support an inference of premeditation.” State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 831 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Finch
green
1 sentence2025“The second and third factors can be further combined as -8- evidence of planning.” Id. “[A] wide range of proven facts will support an inference of premeditation.” State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 831 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Finch
green
1 sentence2025“The second and third factors can be further combined as -8- evidence of planning.” Id. “[A] wide range of proven facts will support an inference of premeditation.” State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 831 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Hourican
green
1 sentence2024Because Keller showed so few signs of impairment on the second and third test, Justin began to think that Keller might “just have a natural nystagmus in his eyes.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
California v. Sierra Club
green
2 sentences2020Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 145 , 105 S. Ct. 3085 , 87 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1985) (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 297 , 101 S. Ct. 1775 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1981))) (the second and third factors were also referred to as “congressional intent” and “statutory consistency”). 2020Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 145 , 105 S. Ct. 3085 , 87 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1985) (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 297 , 101 S. Ct. 1775 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1981))) (the second and third factors were also referred to as “congressional intent” and “statutory consistency”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell
green
2 sentences2020Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 145 , 105 S. Ct. 3085 , 87 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1985) (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 297 , 101 S. Ct. 1775 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1981))) (the second and third factors were also referred to as “congressional intent” and “statutory consistency”). 2020Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 145 , 105 S. Ct. 3085 , 87 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1985) (quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 297 , 101 S. Ct. 1775 , 68 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1981))) (the second and third factors were also referred to as “congressional intent” and “statutory consistency”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re the Estate of Stevens
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2019Id. “[N]ot every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate the right to a public trial or constitute a closure if closed to the public.” State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 71 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Sublett
green
2 sentences2019Id. “[N]ot every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate the right to a public trial or constitute a closure if closed to the public.” State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 71 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012). 2019Id. “[N]ot every interaction between the court, counsel, and defendants will implicate the right to a public trial or constitute a closure if closed to the public.” State v. Sublett, 176 Wn.2d 58, 71 , 292 P.3d 715 (2012). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo
green
1 sentence2019We turn to the evidence presented by the parties on the four factors. 4 It slightly modified the model rules’ statement of the second and third factors, articulating them as “(2) the extent to which the government funds the entity’s activities [and] (3) the extent of government involvement in the entity’s activities.” Fortgang, 187 Wn.2d at 518 . 8 No. 36233-7-III Strand v. Council 2, Wash. St. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hurtado
green
1 sentence2019The court further reasoned that the second and third factors of the Sandoval test "incorporate Shafer's declarant-centric standard' because the declarant must make the statement to a nongovernmental witness." Id. at 600, 294 P.3d 838 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Koslowski
green
1 sentence2014Further, “it is not inconsistent to speak of past events in conjunction with an ongoing emergency and, in appropriate circumstances, considering all of the factors the Court identified [in Davis], the fact that some statements are made with regard to recent past events does not cast them in testimonial stone.” Koslowski, 166 Wn.2d at 423 n.8. ¶52 As to the second and third factors, Officer Misiano and Sergeant Walters went into Dayroom 2 in response to a medical emergency. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System
green
1 sentence2013Because the second and third CR 15(c) 12 Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 174 . 13 Perrin. 158 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Perrin v. Stensland
green
1 sentence2013Because the second and third CR 15(c) 12 Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 174 . 13 Perrin. 158 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.