12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dixon v. Lovegreen2 sentences2009See Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 113-14 , 97 S.Ct. 1723 , 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977) (holding that the risk of erroneous deprivation of a driver's license was low when the suspension process was largely automatic and that an in-person hearing might make a driver feel better about being heard but would not actually contribute to protecting the driver's rights). [3] Respondents failed to cite any examples of errors where additional procedural safeguards would lower the risk of erroneous deprivation. ¶ 16 Respondents also contend that due process requires the ability to present testimony and cross-exa 2009See Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 113-14 , 97 S.Ct. 1723 , 52 L.Ed.2d 172 (1977) (holding that the risk of erroneous deprivation of a driver's license was low when the suspension process was largely automatic and that an in-person hearing might make a driver feel better about being heard but would not actually contribute to protecting the driver's rights). [3] Respondents failed to cite any examples of errors where additional procedural safeguards would lower the risk of erroneous deprivation. ¶ 16 Respondents also contend that due process requires the ability to present testimony and cross-exa | 2 | 2 |
Whitesides v. State, Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehiclesgreen1 sentence2020Whitesides, 20 P.3d at 1137, 1132 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dwight Eugene Smithgreen1 sentence1997The instructions also state that the offender must be afforded the opportunity to voluntarily retrieve the contraband, and the offender must be examined by a member of the medical staff to assure that the dry cell search will not physically harm the offender. [4] "Failure by the warden in the instant case to comply with [C.F.R. § 552.11(c)] ... is violative of due process." Smith, 774 F.2d at 1006 (citation omitted). [5] Rainford challenges the prison's failure to perform a medical examination on him before the search, as set forth in the regulations. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Personal Restraint of Cashaw
green
2 sentences2006Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 149-50 , 866 P.2d 8 (1994) (the ISRB abused its discretion by failing to give Cashaw notice and an in-person hearing before extending his minimum term). 2006Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 149-50 , 866 P.2d 8 (1994) (the ISRB abused its discretion by failing to give Cashaw notice and an in-person hearing before extending his minimum term). | 6 | 1999–2006 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Mines
neutral
2 sentences2002The only reference to Cashaw and Shepard made by the Court of Appeals was its statement that "it is clear that the petitioners in those cases were seriously prejudiced by the Board's failure to provide notice and an in-person hearing before setting the minimum term to equal the maximum sentence." Mines, 107 Wash.App. at 636 , 27 P.3d 691 . 2002The only reference to Cashaw and Shepard made by the Court of Appeals was its statement that “it is clear that the petitioners in those cases were seriously prejudiced by the Board’s failure to provide notice and an in-person hearing before setting the minimum term to equal the maximum sentence.” Mines, 107 Wn. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of Locklear
green
2 sentences1999Accordingly, Cashaw is simply inapplicable to Ecklund's case and the relevant case law from this court clearly mandates that the appropriate standard of review is an "abuse of discretion." See Locklear, 118 Wash.2d at 418 , 823 P.2d 1078 ; Whitesel, 111 Wash.2d at 628 , 763 P.2d 199 ; Myers, 105 Wash.2d at 264 , 714 P.2d 303 . [1] The issue presented for review by the state is: Did the Court of Appeals commit error when it held that, under the Fifth Amendment, the Board is prohibited from considering an offender's refusal to acknowledge guilt when (1) the privilege against self-incrimination d 1999Accordingly, Cashaw is simply inapplicable to Ecklund's case and the relevant case law from this court clearly mandates that the appropriate standard of review is an "abuse of discretion." See Locklear, 118 Wash.2d at 418 , 823 P.2d 1078 ; Whitesel, 111 Wash.2d at 628 , 763 P.2d 199 ; Myers, 105 Wash.2d at 264 , 714 P.2d 303 . [1] The issue presented for review by the state is: Did the Court of Appeals commit error when it held that, under the Fifth Amendment, the Board is prohibited from considering an offender's refusal to acknowledge guilt when (1) the privilege against self-incrimination d | 2 | 1999–1999 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Myers
green
2 sentences1999Accordingly, Cashaw is simply inapplicable to Ecklund's case and the relevant case law from this court clearly mandates that the appropriate standard of review is an "abuse of discretion." See Locklear, 118 Wash.2d at 418 , 823 P.2d 1078 ; Whitesel, 111 Wash.2d at 628 , 763 P.2d 199 ; Myers, 105 Wash.2d at 264 , 714 P.2d 303 . [1] The issue presented for review by the state is: Did the Court of Appeals commit error when it held that, under the Fifth Amendment, the Board is prohibited from considering an offender's refusal to acknowledge guilt when (1) the privilege against self-incrimination d 1999Accordingly, Cashaw is simply inapplicable to Ecklund's case and the relevant case law from this court clearly mandates that the appropriate standard of review is an "abuse of discretion." See Locklear, 118 Wash.2d at 418 , 823 P.2d 1078 ; Whitesel, 111 Wash.2d at 628 , 763 P.2d 199 ; Myers, 105 Wash.2d at 264 , 714 P.2d 303 . [1] The issue presented for review by the state is: Did the Court of Appeals commit error when it held that, under the Fifth Amendment, the Board is prohibited from considering an offender's refusal to acknowledge guilt when (1) the privilege against self-incrimination d | 2 | 1999–1999 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Whitesel
green
2 sentences1999Accordingly, Cashaw is simply inapplicable to Ecklund's case and the relevant case law from this court clearly mandates that the appropriate standard of review is an "abuse of discretion." See Locklear, 118 Wash.2d at 418 , 823 P.2d 1078 ; Whitesel, 111 Wash.2d at 628 , 763 P.2d 199 ; Myers, 105 Wash.2d at 264 , 714 P.2d 303 . [1] The issue presented for review by the state is: Did the Court of Appeals commit error when it held that, under the Fifth Amendment, the Board is prohibited from considering an offender's refusal to acknowledge guilt when (1) the privilege against self-incrimination d 1999Accordingly, Cashaw is simply inapplicable to Ecklund's case and the relevant case law from this court clearly mandates that the appropriate standard of review is an "abuse of discretion." See Locklear, 118 Wash.2d at 418 , 823 P.2d 1078 ; Whitesel, 111 Wash.2d at 628 , 763 P.2d 199 ; Myers, 105 Wash.2d at 264 , 714 P.2d 303 . [1] The issue presented for review by the state is: Did the Court of Appeals commit error when it held that, under the Fifth Amendment, the Board is prohibited from considering an offender's refusal to acknowledge guilt when (1) the privilege against self-incrimination d | 2 | 1999–1999 |
City of Bellevue v. Lee
green
1 sentence2023Johnson advances a similar argument as the drivers in Lee—he asserts that the license suspension procedures outlined in RCW 46.20.245 and 46.20.289 violate due process because he was not provided an in-person hearing. 166 Wn.2d at 583-85 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Warner v. Trombetta
green
1 sentence2009Id. ¶24 RCW 46.20.245 provides for an internal document review by DOL. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Sinka
green
2 sentences1988In In re Sinka, 92 Wn.2d 555 , 599 P.2d 1275 (1979), we decided what due process protections were required when the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles set an exceptional sentence. 1988In In re Sinka, 92 Wn.2d 555 , 599 P.2d 1275 (1979), we decided what due process protections were required when the Board of Prison Terms and Paroles set an exceptional sentence. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.