driving privilege (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

driving privilege in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Crawford v. Washingtongreen
scotus · 2004 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2012
2 sentences

2012But, the Court declined to provide “a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” id. at 68 , leaving courts to “develop [ ] their own interpretation of what is a ‘testimonial statement’ for Sixth Amendment purposes.” United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2010). ¶25 In the companion cases of Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , and Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , we considered whether affidavits certifying the status of a defendant’s driving privilege are testimonial statements covered by the Sixth Amendment.

2007See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51 (explaining that the proper focus of confrontation clause is on “ ‘witnesses against the accused ... those who bear testimony... [a]n accuser’ ” (quoting 2 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828))).

23
State v. Smithgreen
washctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi

2007Rather, the records custodian “simply communicated [Smith’s] driving status as reflected in DOL’s computer records.” Id. 7 Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant’s driving privilege had been revoked “contain [ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.” 98 Wn.

12
United States v. Martinez-Riosgreen
ca5 · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012But, the Court declined to provide “a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” id. at 68 , leaving courts to “develop [ ] their own interpretation of what is a ‘testimonial statement’ for Sixth Amendment purposes.” United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2010). ¶25 In the companion cases of Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , and Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , we considered whether affidavits certifying the status of a defendant’s driving privilege are testimonial statements covered by the Sixth Amendment.

11
State v. Kronichred
wash · 2007 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007As I said in State v. Kirkpatrick, No. 77719-5, ___ Wash. at ___, 161 P.3d at 998 (Wash. Supreme Ct. July 12, 2007) (Alexander, C.J., concurring), "There is a critical difference between certifying the existence of a public record and certifying the nonexistence of a public record" because "[t]he latter certification is prepared for trial, and . . . serves as a vehicle to introduce facts not contained within the public records themselves." Significantly, no public record existed prior to trial that stated that Kirkpatrick had never obtained a license.

2007Cf. Kirkpatrick, ___ Wash. at ___-___, 161 P.3d at 996-97 , 2007 WL 2003401 (finding no reason to treat certification of the absence of a driver's license differently from certification of the existence of a license).

11
State v. Rossgreen
washctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002See, e.g., Ross, 98 Wn.

11
State v. Gluckgreen
wash · 1974 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (25)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Kronich red
wash · 2007
2 sentences

2019In Kronich , we held that affidavits certifying the status of a defendant's driving privilege were nontestimonial for purposes of confrontation clause protections. 160 Wash.2d at 902-04 , 161 P.3d 982 .

2019In Kronich , we held that affidavits certifying the status of a defendant's driving privilege were nontestimonial for purposes of confrontation clause protections. 160 Wash.2d at 902-04 , 161 P.3d 982 .

22012–2019
State v. Kirkpatrick red
wash · 2007
2 sentences

2012But, the Court declined to provide “a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” id. at 68 , leaving courts to “develop [ ] their own interpretation of what is a ‘testimonial statement’ for Sixth Amendment purposes.” United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2010). ¶25 In the companion cases of Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , and Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , we considered whether affidavits certifying the status of a defendant’s driving privilege are testimonial statements covered by the Sixth Amendment.

2007As I said in State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 889-90 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007) (Alexander, C.J., concurring), “There is a critical difference between certifying the existence of a public record and certifying the nonexistence of a public record” because “[t]he latter certification is prepared for trial, and ... serves as a vehicle to introduce facts not contained within the public records themselves.” Significantly, no public record existed prior to trial that stated that Kirkpatrick had never obtained a license.

22007–2012
State v. Chapman green
washctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi

2007Rather, the records custodian “simply communicated [Smith’s] driving status as reflected in DOL’s computer records.” Id. 7 Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant’s driving privilege had been revoked “contain [ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.” 98 Wn.

22007–2007
State v. Monson green
wash · 1989
2 sentences

2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi

2007App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff’d, 113 Wn.2d 833 (1989)). ¶21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington’s appellate courts makes clear that a certified statement as to the status of a defendant’s driving privilege is not an accusatory statement or testimony; it is not testimonial evidence.

22007–2007
State v. Monson green
washctapp · 1989
2 sentences

2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi

2007App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff’d, 113 Wn.2d 833 (1989)). ¶21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington’s appellate courts makes clear that a certified statement as to the status of a defendant’s driving privilege is not an accusatory statement or testimony; it is not testimonial evidence.

22007–2007
State v. Roggenkamp green
washctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

22004–2004
Terry v. Ohio green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

2020Elton's detention by 2 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). 3 holding the identification card was lawful.” Finally, the court determined that Sergeant Elton’s observation of “the suspected heroin in the front driver’s seat as [Blye] exited[ the vehicle] . . . was sufficient . . . to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle.” The court thus denied Blye’s motion to suppress the physical evidence.

2020Elton's detention by 2 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). 3 holding the identification card was lawful.” Finally, the court determined that Sergeant Elton’s observation of “the suspected heroin in the front driver’s seat as [Blye] exited[ the vehicle] . . . was sufficient . . . to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle.” The court thus denied Blye’s motion to suppress the physical evidence.

12020–2020
Christen v. Lee green
wash · 1989
1 sentence

2017Id. at 495- 96, 503.

12017–2017
State v. Kronich green
washctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2007Kronich, 131 Wash. App. at 546-47 , 128 P.3d 119 .

2007Kronich, 131 Wash. App. at 546-47 , 128 P.3d 119 .

12007–2007
State v. NMK green
washctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2007A DOL certification describing the status of a person's driving privilege is not testimonial evidence for purposes of the Crawford analysis ¶ 17 Adopting the approach of Division One of the Court of Appeals in State v. N.M.K., 129 Wash.App. 155 , 118 P.3d 368 (2005), the Court of Appeals below analogized the public record at issue to a nontestimonial business record.

2007A DOL certification describing the status of a person's driving privilege is not testimonial evidence for purposes of the Crawford analysis ¶ 17 Adopting the approach of Division One of the Court of Appeals in State v. N.M.K., 129 Wash.App. 155 , 118 P.3d 368 (2005), the Court of Appeals below analogized the public record at issue to a nontestimonial business record.

12007–2007
State v. Green red
wash · 1980
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Acosta green
wash · 1984
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Mierz green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Jackson green
wash · 1999
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Aho green
wash · 1999
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Bradley green
wash · 2000
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Cronin green
wash · 2000
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Ermert green
wash · 1980
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
In Re WINSHIP green
scotus · 1970
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. McCullum green
wash · 1983
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
State v. Salas green
wash · 1995
1 sentence

2004See RCW 46.61.520; Salas, 127 Wash.2d at 181 , 897 P.2d 1246 .

12004–2004
State v. Neher green
wash · 1989
2 sentences

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50

12004–2004
City of Seattle v. Foley green
washctapp · 1990
1 sentence

1990(Italics ours.) We address this language in Seattle v. Foley, 56 Wn.

11990–1990
Bell v. Burson green
scotus · 1971
2 sentences

1983Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 , 29 L.

1983Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 , 29 L.

11983–1983
State v. Davis green
washctapp · 1974
1 sentence

1979See State v. Gluck, 83 Wn.2d 424 , 518 P.2d 703 (1974); State v. Davis, 12 Wn.

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

CA 133 (1968–2026) PA 29 (1955–2025) MO 27 (1893–2013) FL 21 (1974–2016) CO 16 (1980–2025) VA 16 (1996–2022) TX 16 (1956–2024) OH 15 (1975–2017) NC 12 (1975–2019) WA 12 (1979–2020) IL 8 (1999–2026) LA 8 (1978–2024) IN 7 (1977–2023) OK 7 (1972–2024) AZ 6 (1999–2025) NJ 5 (1975–2003) MI 5 (1891–1989) OR 4 (2007–2019) AL 4 (1977–2008) DE 3 (2016–2025) HI 3 (1978–2005) GA 3 (2012–2022) MN 3 (1985–2008) SD 3 (1986–2003) TN 2 (2006–2007) NM 2 (1975–2005) NY 2 (1971–2019) MD 2 (2003–2016) MA 2 (1914–2012) IA 2 (1963–1985) NE 2 (1976–1986) CT 2 (1992–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check