12 Washington opinions name it 3 courts 2012–2026 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. Huntgreen2 sentences2016We accept the state’s concession and, for the reasons stated in Coverstone—viz., the gravity of the error, the length of defendant’s prison term (here, 36 months), and the lack of any evidence of financial resources—conclude that it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion to correct the error. 260 Or App at 717 ; see State v. Hunt, 271 Or App 347, 353 , 350 P3d 521 (2015) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $510 in attorney fees because the amount was a substantial sum given that defendant was sentenced to 14 months in prison, and there was no indication on the r 2016We accept the state’s concession and, for the reasons stated in Coverstone—viz., the gravity of the error, the length of defendant’s prison term (here, 36 months), and the lack of any evidence of financial resources—conclude that it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion to correct the error. 260 Or App at 717 ; see State v. Hunt, 271 Or App 347, 353 , 350 P3d 521 (2015) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $510 in attorney fees because the amount was a substantial sum given that defendant was sentenced to 14 months in prison, and there was no indication on the r | 1 | 1 |
Danzer v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen1 sentence2015RCW 49.17.180(7); see also Danzer, 104 Wn. | 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. Lindsay
green
2 sentences2026App. 417, 431 , 220 P.3d 1273 (2009)). “ ‘When a prosecutor compares the reasonable doubt standard to everyday decision making, it improperly minimizes and trivializes the gravity of the standard and the jury's role.’ ” Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d at 436 (quoting State v. Lindsay, 171 Wn. 2022The Supreme Court determined that the prosecutor’s comparison “‘improperly minimizes and trivializes the gravity of the standard and the jury’s role.’” Id. at 436 (quoting State v. Lindsay, 171 Wn. | 5 | 2017–2026 |
State v. Lindsay
green
2 sentences2026App. 417, 431 , 220 P.3d 1273 (2009)). “ ‘When a prosecutor compares the reasonable doubt standard to everyday decision making, it improperly minimizes and trivializes the gravity of the standard and the jury's role.’ ” Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d at 436 (quoting State v. Lindsay, 171 Wn. 2022The Supreme Court determined that the prosecutor’s comparison “‘improperly minimizes and trivializes the gravity of the standard and the jury’s role.’” Id. at 436 (quoting State v. Lindsay, 171 Wn. | 5 | 2014–2026 |
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences2014App. at 828 (citing State v. Anderson, 153 Wn. 2014App. at 828 (citing State v. Anderson, 153 Wn. | 3 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Coverstone
green
2 sentences2016We accept the state’s concession and, for the reasons stated in Coverstone—viz., the gravity of the error, the length of defendant’s prison term (here, 36 months), and the lack of any evidence of financial resources—conclude that it is appropriate for us to exercise our discretion to correct the error. 260 Or App at 717 ; see State v. Hunt, 271 Or App 347, 353 , 350 P3d 521 (2015) (exercising discretion to correct erroneous imposition of $510 in attorney fees because the amount was a substantial sum given that defendant was sentenced to 14 months in prison, and there was no indication on the r 2016Id. at 716-17 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2026App. 417, 431 , 220 P.3d 1273 (2009)). “ ‘When a prosecutor compares the reasonable doubt standard to everyday decision making, it improperly minimizes and trivializes the gravity of the standard and the jury's role.’ ” Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d at 436 (quoting State v. Lindsay, 171 Wn. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer
green
2 sentences2021See RAP 10.3(a)(6) (stating that the Appellant’s brief must contain “argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the record.”); DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126 , 372 P.2d 193 (1962) (stating “Where no authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not required to search out authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent search, has found none.”). 2021See RAP 10.3(a)(6) (stating that the Appellant’s brief must contain “argument in support of the issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and references to relevant parts of the record.”); DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126 , 372 P.2d 193 (1962) (stating “Where no authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not required to search out authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent search, has found none.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Janicki Log. v. Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
green
1 sentence2021App. 655, 659 , 37 P.3d 309 (2001), 5 Reeves also argues that Gravity’s claim of replevin is barred “under equitable doctrines and defenses such as laches, waiver, acquiescence, and related doctrines.” Br. of Appellant at 37. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.