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.
11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fordgreen2 sentences2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wn.2d 859 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist’s approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a “ ‘cookbook’ ” of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court stated the judiciary’s “ultimate con 2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wn.2d 859 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist’s approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a “ ‘cookbook’ ” of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court stated the judiciary’s “ultimate con | 2 | 6 |
State v. Schulzegreen2 sentences2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wn.2d 859 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist’s approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a “ ‘cookbook’ ” of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court stated the judiciary’s “ultimate con 2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wn.2d 859 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist’s approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a “ ‘cookbook’ ” of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court stated the judiciary’s “ultimate con | 2 | 2 |
Panag v. Farmers Insurancegreen2 sentences2021App. 2d at 16 (an accurate claim can be misleading because of the “net impression” created) (quoting Panag, 166 Wn.2d at 50 ). 2021See Panag, 166 Wn.2d at 50 (“Deception exists ‘if there is a representation, 64 omission, or practice that is likely to mislead’ a reasonable consumer.”) (quoting Sw. | 1 | 1 |
Nash v. Stategreen2 sentences1984Subsequently, in Nash v. State, ___ Ind. App. ___, 433 N.E.2d 807, 812 (1982), the court held that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to define such terms: While the trial court gave an accurate instruction concerning the statutory offense of theft, it did not attempt to define the terms "intentionally" or "knowingly." Nash's tendered instruction was a correct statement of the law in that it recited verbatim from I.C. 1984Subsequently, in Nash v. State, _ Ind. App. _, 433 N.E.2d 807, 812 (1982), the court held that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to define such terms: While the trial court gave an accurate instruction concerning the statutory offense of theft, it did not attempt to define the terms "intentionally" or "knowingly." Nash's tendered instruction was a correct statement of the law in that it recited verbatim from I.C. 35-41-2-2 which specifically defines the terms. | 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. Straka
green
2 sentences2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wash.2d 467 , 880 P.2d 517 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wash.2d 859 , 810 P.2d 888 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wash.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist's approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wash.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a "cookbook" of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶ 34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court s 2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wn.2d 859 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist’s approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a “ ‘cookbook’ ” of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court stated the judiciary’s “ultimate con | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Wittenbarger
green
2 sentences2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wash.2d 467 , 880 P.2d 517 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wash.2d 859 , 810 P.2d 888 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wash.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist's approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wash.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a "cookbook" of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶ 34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court s 2007Wittenbarger, 124 Wn.2d 467 (State not required to preserve detailed machine maintenance records); Straka, 116 Wn.2d 859 (State not required to preserve invalid test messages); State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988) (affirming toxicologist’s approval of DataMaster); see also State v. Schulze, 116 Wn.2d 154 , 804 P.2d 566 (1991) (toxicologist need not adopt a “ ‘cookbook’ ” of protocols and procedures for administering alcohol concentration tests but may, instead, adopt general criteria). ¶34 In evaluating the propriety of the changes, this court stated the judiciary’s “ultimate con | 2 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Halsen
green
2 sentences1991(Italics ours.) The word "average" is not defined in the WAC, or by statute. " 'Absent a statutory definition, words of a statute must be accorded their ordinary meaning.' " State v. Halsen, 111 Wn.2d 121, 123 , 757 P.2d 531 (1988) (quoting Davis v. Department of Empl. 1991(Italics ours.) The word "average" is not defined in the WAC, or by statute. " 'Absent a statutory definition, words of a statute must be accorded their ordinary meaning.' " State v. Halsen, 111 Wn.2d 121, 123 , 757 P.2d 531 (1988) (quoting Davis v. Department of Empl. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
California v. Trombetta
green
1 sentence1985This claim falls within "the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence.'" See California v. Trombetta,_U.S._, 81 L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Peterson v. . the Mayor, C., of New-York
green
1 sentence1926An accurate test of the question as to whether an action of the common council is legislative or administrative is the determination of the question whether the act of the council was making a law or executing one already in existence.” If it is a legislative act to adopt plans and specifications for the erection of a public market, as was held in Peterson v. Mayor etc., of New York, supra, and if it is an act of legislation to authorize the construction of a public building and set a boundary to its cost, and to provide money for it, as was held in Pooling v. City Council of Fitchburg, supra, | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.