prima facie case requirement (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

prima facie case requirement in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2017 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Thomasgreen
wash · 2009 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477,490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

33
State v. Thomasgreen
wash · 2009 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477,490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

33

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 (9)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Hicks green
wash · 2008
2 sentences

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477,490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

32013–2013
State v. Hicks green
wash · 2008
2 sentences

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

2013See State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380, 397-98 , 208 P.3d 1107 (2009); State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477,490-93 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008).

32013–2013
Riley v. Sturdevant green
washctapp · 1975
2 sentences

1976Riley v. Sturdevant, 12 Wn.

1976Riley v. Sturdevant, 12 Wn.

21976–1976
Aquarian Foundation v. KTVW, INC. green
washctapp · 1974
2 sentences

1975Aquarian Foundation v. KTVW, Inc., 11 Wn.

1975Aquarian Foundation v. KTVW, Inc., 11 Wn.

21975–1975
Adams v. Department of Labor & Industries green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2017Where a -7- No. 75208-1-1/8 respondent does not file an opening brief, an appellate court "is entitled to make its decision based on the argument and record before it." Adams v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 128 Wn.2d 224, 229 , 905 P.2d 1220 (1995)(rejecting continuing validity of the prima facie case rule when respondent fails to file a brief); see also RAP 11.2(a)(only a party who submits a brief may present oral argument).

2017Where a -7- No. 75208-1-1/8 respondent does not file an opening brief, an appellate court "is entitled to make its decision based on the argument and record before it." Adams v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 128 Wn.2d 224, 229 , 905 P.2d 1220 (1995)(rejecting continuing validity of the prima facie case rule when respondent fails to file a brief); see also RAP 11.2(a)(only a party who submits a brief may present oral argument).

12017–2017
In re the Personal Restraint of Goodwin green
wash · 2002
1 sentence

2005Id. ¶29 If a personal restraint petitioner presents a prima facie case of error, but the issues cannot be resolved on the existing record, the case will be transferred to superior court for a reference hearing.

12005–2005
State v. Wilburn red
washctapp · 1988
1 sentence

1990State v. Wilburn, 51 Wn.

11990–1990
In Re the Personal Restraint of Hagler green
wash · 1982
2 sentences

1983In re Hagler, 97 Wn.2d 818, 826 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982).

1983In re Hagler, 97 Wn.2d 818, 826 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982).

11983–1983
Erickson v. F. McLellan & Co. neutral
wash · 1907
2 sentences

1913The evidence offered made a prima facie case of waiver of proofs on the part of the appellant, and the remaining question is controlled by the case of Erickson v. McLellan & Co., 46 Wash. 661 , 91 Pac. 249 .

1913The evidence offered made a prima facie case of waiver of proofs on the part of the appellant, and the remaining question is controlled by the case of Erickson v. McLellan & Co., 46 Wash. 661 , 91 Pac. 249 .

11913–1913

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.04.190 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.070 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.080 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.36.100 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.130 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.150 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.240 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IN 134 (1911–2018) NY 77 (1915–2026) TX 40 (1926–2024) IL 25 (1982–2024) NC 13 (1906–2017) OH 13 (1958–2025) WA 12 (1913–2017) CA 11 (1914–2019) MI 10 (1962–2024) MO 9 (1901–2021) WI 9 (1910–2023) LA 8 (2001–2024) PA 7 (1973–2026) TN 6 (1965–2024) ND 6 (2013–2026) FL 6 (1992–2013) IA 5 (2012–2023) AL 5 (1977–2006) CO 5 (1957–2013) MA 5 (1997–2020) AZ 5 (1985–2022) NJ 4 (1998–2024) NM 4 (2017–2024) AR 4 (1993–2000) DC 3 (1987–2007) UT 3 (1989–2003) OR 3 (1954–2010) HI 2 (1939–2016) CT 2 (2001–2002) WY 2 (1978–2007) KY 2 (1922–2017)

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