open courts clause in Washington

11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Easterlinggreen wash · 2006 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant's right to a public trial); Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶ 18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004), and Bullock v. Roberts, 84 Wash. 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L.	2	2
State v. Easterlinggreen wash · 2006 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant's right to a public trial); Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶ 18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004), and Bullock v. Roberts, 84 Wash. 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L.	2	2
Thornton v. Brelandgreen miss · 1983 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Thus, in representing their clients, the Bucher Defendants were exercising their constitutional rights under the 3 See Schimmel v. McGregor, 438 S.W.3d 847, 858 (Tex. App. 2014) (recognizing attorney right to petition on behalf of clients and also attorney right to freedom of speech on behalf of clients in applying Texas anti-SLAPP law); Thornton v. Breland, 441 So. 2d 1348, 1350 (Miss. 1983) (“We regard the lawyer’s right and responsibility of zealous advocacy on behalf of his client among the most precious forms of speech.”). 8 No. 86585-4-I Washington State Constitution, in addition to the	1	1
Schimmel v. McGregorgreen texapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Thus, in representing their clients, the Bucher Defendants were exercising their constitutional rights under the 3 See Schimmel v. McGregor, 438 S.W.3d 847, 858 (Tex. App. 2014) (recognizing attorney right to petition on behalf of clients and also attorney right to freedom of speech on behalf of clients in applying Texas anti-SLAPP law); Thornton v. Breland, 441 So. 2d 1348, 1350 (Miss. 1983) (“We regard the lawyer’s right and responsibility of zealous advocacy on behalf of his client among the most precious forms of speech.”). 8 No. 86585-4-I Washington State Constitution, in addition to the	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Brightman green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2018Brightman, 155 Wn.2d at 526 . 2014State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 514 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (citing Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 256 ). ¶8 Lower courts in this state continue to struggle with the open courts doctrine derived from article I, section 22.	5	2014–2018
Tennessee v. Lane green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L. 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L.	2	2007–2007
Dreiling v. Jain green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant's right to a public trial); Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶ 18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004), and Bullock v. Roberts, 84 Wash. 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L.	2	2007–2007
Dreiling v. Jain green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant's right to a public trial); Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶ 18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004), and Bullock v. Roberts, 84 Wash. 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L.	2	2007–2007
John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Center green wash · 1991 2 sentences 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L. 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wn.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant’s right to a public trial); John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wn.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S. Ct. 1978 , 158 L.	2	2007–2007
In re the Marriage of King green wash · 2007 1 sentence 2025Our courts have “generally applied the open courts clause [of article I, section 10] [in the context of] . . . the right to a remedy for a wrong suffered.” King v. King, 162 Wn.2d 378, 388 , 174 P.3d 659 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).	1	2025–2025
King v. King green wash · 2007 1 sentence 2025Our courts have “generally applied the open courts clause [of article I, section 10] [in the context of] . . . the right to a remedy for a wrong suffered.” King v. King, 162 Wn.2d 378, 388 , 174 P.3d 659 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).	1	2025–2025
State v. Brightman green wash · 2005 1 sentence 2014State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 514 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (citing Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 256 ). ¶8 Lower courts in this state continue to struggle with the open courts doctrine derived from article I, section 22.	1	2014–2014
State v. Bone-Club green wash · 1995 1 sentence 2014State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 514 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (citing Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 256 ). ¶8 Lower courts in this state continue to struggle with the open courts doctrine derived from article I, section 22.	1	2014–2014
Arizona v. Fulminante green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2013E.g., Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 , 113 L. 2013E.g., Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 , 113 L.	1	2013–2013
State v. Strode green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2011Cf. State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 236 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009) (Fairhurst, J., concurring) (“I do not agree with [the lead opinion’s] conflation of the rights of the defendant, the media, and the public. 2011Cf. State v. Strode, 167 Wash.2d 222, 236 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009) (Fairhurst, J., concurring) ("I do not agree with [the lead opinion's] conflation of the rights of the defendant, the media, and the public.	1	2011–2011
State v. Strode green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2011Cf. State v. Strode, 167 Wn.2d 222, 236 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009) (Fairhurst, J., concurring) (“I do not agree with [the lead opinion’s] conflation of the rights of the defendant, the media, and the public. 2011Cf. State v. Strode, 167 Wash.2d 222, 236 , 217 P.3d 310 (2009) (Fairhurst, J., concurring) ("I do not agree with [the lead opinion's] conflation of the rights of the defendant, the media, and the public.	1	2011–2011
Waples v. Yi neutral washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2010Unless noted otherwise, further reference to RCW 7.70.100(1) is to the former statute. [2] Waples v. Yi, 146 Wash.App. 54 , 189 P.3d 813 (2008). [3] Cunningham appealed the trial court's dismissal directly to this court. [4] Because we hold that the notice requirement violates the separation of powers, we do not reach the Waples's and Cunningham's arguments that the notice requirement (1) is not mandatory, (2) violates the privileges and immunities clause under article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution, (3) violates the open courts clause under article I, section 10 of the Was	1	2010–2010
Waples v. Yi neutral washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2010Unless noted otherwise, further reference to RCW 7.70.100(1) is to the former statute. [2] Waples v. Yi, 146 Wash.App. 54 , 189 P.3d 813 (2008). [3] Cunningham appealed the trial court's dismissal directly to this court. [4] Because we hold that the notice requirement violates the separation of powers, we do not reach the Waples's and Cunningham's arguments that the notice requirement (1) is not mandatory, (2) violates the privileges and immunities clause under article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution, (3) violates the open courts clause under article I, section 10 of the Was	1	2010–2010
Bullock v. Superior Court neutral wash · 1974 2 sentences 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant's right to a public trial); Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶ 18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004), and Bullock v. Roberts, 84 Wash. 2007Spitzer, The Washington State Constitution: A Reference Guide 24 (2002); see, e.g., State v. Easterling, 157 Wash.2d 167 , 137 P.3d 825 (2006) (the right to open and accessible court proceedings); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash.2d 900 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004) (defendant's right to a public trial); Doe v. Puget Sound Blood Ctr., 117 Wash.2d 772, 780 , 819 P.2d 370 (1991) (the right to discovery). ¶ 18 Ms. King argues that the right of access is violated by less than meaningful access, citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004), and Bullock v. Roberts, 84 Wash.	1	2007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.16.030 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.050 (4)

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

TX 255 (1986–2025) UT 35 (1989–2024) MO 17 (1992–2018) WA 11 (2007–2025) SD 5 (1998–2019) OR 5 (2012–2016) NC 4 (1994–2026) IN 4 (1997–2020) KY 3 (2018–2024) AZ 3 (2000–2007) TN 2 (2009–2013) VA 2 (2022–2022)

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