host factors (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

host factors in Washington

11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Rothred
washctapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014We referenced "a host of factors for determining whether the denial of a continuance unjustifiably interferes with the right to counsel of choice,"14 Roth, 75 Wn.

2014We referenced “a host of factors for determining whether the denial of a continuance unjustifiably interferes with the right to counsel of choice,” 14 Roth, 75 Wn.

22
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen
scotus · 1986 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2026
2 sentences

2018Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends _mon a host of factors. . . includ[ing] the importance of the witness' testibiony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting he testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross- examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case. -15- No. 74438-1-1/16 Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673,684 , 106 S. Ct. 1431 , 89 L.

2018Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends _mon a host of factors. . . includ[ing] the importance of the witness' testibiony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting he testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross- examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case. -15- No. 74438-1-1/16 Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673,684 , 106 S. Ct. 1431 , 89 L.

16
Berghuis v. Smithgreen
scotus · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See id. at 332 (defendant could not establish prima facie case under Duren by “pointing to a host of factors that, individually or in combination, might contribute to a group’s underrepresentation”).

11

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 (6)

CaseCitedYears
State Of Washington v. Theresa Scanlan neutral
washctapp · 2018
1 sentence

2024App. 2d 715 , 732-33, 413 P.3d 82 (2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S. Ct. 1431 , 89 L.

12024–2024
State v. Davis green
wash · 2005
1 sentence

2016Ed. 2d 177 (2004). ~ State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893, 901 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). 8 State v. Davis, 154 Wn.2d 291, 304 , 111 P.3d 844 (2005). 9k1.at305. 4 No. 75236-7-1/5 particular case depends upon a host of factors. . . includ[ing] the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”1° The State bears the burd

12016–2016
State v. Davis green
wash · 2005
1 sentence

2016Ed. 2d 177 (2004). ~ State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893, 901 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). 8 State v. Davis, 154 Wn.2d 291, 304 , 111 P.3d 844 (2005). 9k1.at305. 4 No. 75236-7-1/5 particular case depends upon a host of factors. . . includ[ing] the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”1° The State bears the burd

12016–2016
State v. Kronich green
wash · 2007
1 sentence

2016Ed. 2d 177 (2004). ~ State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893, 901 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). 8 State v. Davis, 154 Wn.2d 291, 304 , 111 P.3d 844 (2005). 9k1.at305. 4 No. 75236-7-1/5 particular case depends upon a host of factors. . . includ[ing] the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”1° The State bears the burd

12016–2016
State v. Kronich green
wash · 2007
1 sentence

2016Ed. 2d 177 (2004). ~ State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893, 901 , 161 P.3d 982 (2007). 8 State v. Davis, 154 Wn.2d 291, 304 , 111 P.3d 844 (2005). 9k1.at305. 4 No. 75236-7-1/5 particular case depends upon a host of factors. . . includ[ing] the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”1° The State bears the burd

12016–2016
Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Company green
wash · 1984
2 sentences

1990The analysis does not stop here, however; we next must consider whether the product was unsafe beyond the expectations of the ordinary consumer. 6 Although a host of factors is considered in a design defect case (see Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Wn.2d 208 , 683 P.2d 1097 , 40 A.L.R.4th 609 (1984)), we believe that only two factors need be considered in a failure to warn case: (1) nature of the product, and (2) deficiency of the warning.

1990The analysis does not stop here, however; we next must consider whether the product was unsafe beyond the expectations of the ordinary consumer. 6 Although a host of factors is considered in a design defect case (see Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Wn.2d 208 , 683 P.2d 1097 , 40 A.L.R.4th 609 (1984)), we believe that only two factors need be considered in a failure to warn case: (1) nature of the product, and (2) deficiency of the warning.

11990–1990

Where else courts name it

VA 66 (1987–2026) TX 52 (1992–2025) CA 44 (1976–2026) IL 22 (1989–2025) IA 21 (1994–2024) ID 17 (1976–2025) SC 15 (1996–2025) UT 14 (1992–2024) KS 13 (2003–2026) GA 12 (1949–2022) MI 11 (1986–2025) WA 11 (1990–2026) NY 10 (1999–2024) AL 9 (1987–2024) OH 8 (1990–2020) LA 8 (1993–2024) MD 8 (1981–2018) TN 8 (1994–2022) AR 7 (1990–2026) WV 6 (1994–2020) DC 6 (1992–2021) OR 6 (1997–2026) NH 5 (2013–2023) VT 5 (2012–2015) ME 5 (1986–2025) SD 5 (2019–2020) CT 5 (1991–2021) MA 4 (1987–2001) IN 4 (1990–2014) RI 4 (1982–2021) PA 4 (2016–2026) MN 3 (1989–2025) NC 3 (1976–2025) HI 3 (2002–2019) WI 3 (2017–2026) AK 3 (2015–2025) NJ 3 (1984–2008) MO 3 (2011–2023) FL 2 (1992–1998) WY 2 (1986–1998) CO 2 (2002–2018) NM 2 (1995–2012) NE 2 (2007–2025)

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