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 1924–2026 4 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. Dhaliwalgreen1 sentence2024“The burden rests on the defendant to show the prosecuting attorney’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial.” Id. at 747; see also Br. of Appellant at 31 (citing State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d 559, 578 , 79 P.3d 432 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dhaliwalgreen1 sentence2024“The burden rests on the defendant to show the prosecuting attorney’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial.” Id. at 747; see also Br. of Appellant at 31 (citing State v. Dhaliwal, 150 Wn.2d 559, 578 , 79 P.3d 432 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Memel v. Reimergreen2 sentences1979Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 687, 538 P.2d 517 (1975), citing Moore v. Mayfair Tavern, Inc., 75 Wn.2d 401, 406-07 , 451 P.2d 669 (1969), states: [T]he purpose of the rule requiring a party to except [to instructions] . . . is to put upon counsel the duty to use his best efforts to keep a trial free from error, and to this end to give the court an adequate statement of his position upon all matters upon which he asks the court to make a ruling. 1979Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 687, 538 P.2d 517 (1975), citing Moore v. Mayfair Tavern, Inc., 75 Wn.2d 401, 406-07 , 451 P.2d 669 (1969), states: [T]he purpose of the rule requiring a party to except [to instructions] . . . is to put upon counsel the duty to use his best efforts to keep a trial free from error, and to this end to give the court an adequate statement of his position upon all matters upon which he asks the court to make a ruling. | 1 | 1 |
Fehler v. City of Montesanogreen2 sentences1924See Fehler v. Montesano, 110 Wash. 143 , 188 Pac. 5 , where our cases on this subject were collected. 1924See Fehler v. Montesano, 110 Wash. 143 , 188 Pac. 5 , where our cases on this subject were collected. | 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. Fisher
green
2 sentences2026“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant a fair trial but not a trial free from error.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). 2026“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant a fair trial but not a trial free from error.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). | 5 | 2017–2026 |
State v. Fisher
green
2 sentences2026“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant a fair trial but not a trial free from error.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). 2026“The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant a fair trial but not a trial free from error.” State v. Fisher, 165 Wn.2d 727, 746-47 , 202 P.3d 937 (2009). | 5 | 2017–2026 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences2020State v. Reed, 102 Wn.2d 140, 145 , 684 P.2d 699 (1984). 2020State v. Reed, 102 Wn.2d 140, 145 , 684 P.2d 699 (1984). | 3 | 2009–2020 |
State v. Davenport
green
2 sentences2026“Prosecutorial misconduct may deprive the defendant of [their right to] a fair trial.” State v. Davenport, 100 Wn.2d 757, 762 , 675 P.2d 1213 (1984). 2026“Prosecutorial misconduct may deprive the defendant of [their right to] a fair trial.” State v. Davenport, 100 Wn.2d 757, 762 , 675 P.2d 1213 (1984). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Hecht
green
1 sentence2016CrR 7.8(b)(1) similarly states that a trial court may relieve a party from a final judgment due to an "[irregularity in obtaining a judgment." We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's denial of a new trial and denial of relief from judgment.4 "A trial court abuses its discretion when its 'decision is manifestly unreasonable, or is exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons.'"5 Bailiff's Communication with Jury Benson first argues that the bailiff's communication with the jury during deliberations and in his absence was improper and deprived him of his right to a 2 State | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Moore v. Mayfair Tavern, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 687, 538 P.2d 517 (1975), citing Moore v. Mayfair Tavern, Inc., 75 Wn.2d 401, 406-07 , 451 P.2d 669 (1969), states: [T]he purpose of the rule requiring a party to except [to instructions] . . . is to put upon counsel the duty to use his best efforts to keep a trial free from error, and to this end to give the court an adequate statement of his position upon all matters upon which he asks the court to make a ruling. 1979Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 687, 538 P.2d 517 (1975), citing Moore v. Mayfair Tavern, Inc., 75 Wn.2d 401, 406-07 , 451 P.2d 669 (1969), states: [T]he purpose of the rule requiring a party to except [to instructions] . . . is to put upon counsel the duty to use his best efforts to keep a trial free from error, and to this end to give the court an adequate statement of his position upon all matters upon which he asks the court to make a ruling. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Jones v. City of Seattle
neutral
2 sentences1924Although the defendants were entitled to have the jury instructed on their theory of the case, if there was any evidence to support it (Jones v. Seattle, 23 Wash. 753 , 63 Pac. 553 , and State v. Messner, 43 Wash. 206 , 86 Pac. 636 ), yet they were not entitled to have instructions given containing any misstatement of the law, even though they were in the main free from error, for, as we have said before, the court is not compelled to separate the bad portions from the good portions in requested instructions, even though the separation is not difficult. 1924Although the defendants were entitled to have the jury instructed on their theory of the case, if there was any evidence to support it (Jones v. Seattle, 23 Wash. 753 , 63 Pac. 553 , and State v. Messner, 43 Wash. 206 , 86 Pac. 636 ), yet they were not entitled to have instructions given containing any misstatement of the law, even though they were in the main free from error, for, as we have said before, the court is not compelled to separate the bad portions from the good portions in requested instructions, even though the separation is not difficult. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
State v. Messner
green
2 sentences1924Although the defendants were entitled to have the jury instructed on their theory of the case, if there was any evidence to support it (Jones v. Seattle, 23 Wash. 753 , 63 Pac. 553 , and State v. Messner, 43 Wash. 206 , 86 Pac. 636 ), yet they were not entitled to have instructions given containing any misstatement of the law, even though they were in the main free from error, for, as we have said before, the court is not compelled to separate the bad portions from the good portions in requested instructions, even though the separation is not difficult. 1924Although the defendants were entitled to have the jury instructed on their theory of the case, if there was any evidence to support it (Jones v. Seattle, 23 Wash. 753 , 63 Pac. 553 , and State v. Messner, 43 Wash. 206 , 86 Pac. 636 ), yet they were not entitled to have instructions given containing any misstatement of the law, even though they were in the main free from error, for, as we have said before, the court is not compelled to separate the bad portions from the good portions in requested instructions, even though the separation is not difficult. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.