11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2021 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. Goldbergred1 sentence2021See State v. Goldberg, 149 Wn.2d 888, 894 , 72 P.2d 1083 (2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Guzman Nuñez, 174 Wn.2d 707, 713 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (“RCW 10.95.020 defines the aggravating circumstances that make premeditated murder first degree murder punishable under that chapter rather than under the 5 Petitioners’ claim that RCW 10.73.100(2) reaches sentences as well as convictions is also consistent with our precedent. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guzman Nuñezgreen1 sentence2021See State v. Goldberg, 149 Wn.2d 888, 894 , 72 P.2d 1083 (2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Guzman Nuñez, 174 Wn.2d 707, 713 , 285 P.3d 21 (2012) (“RCW 10.95.020 defines the aggravating circumstances that make premeditated murder first degree murder punishable under that chapter rather than under the 5 Petitioners’ claim that RCW 10.73.100(2) reaches sentences as well as convictions is also consistent with our precedent. | 1 | 1 |
Sherwood & Roberts—Yakima, Inc. v. Leachgreen2 sentences1982See Sherwood & Roberts-Yakima, Inc. v. Leach, 67 Wn.2d 630 , 409 P.2d 160 , 14 A.L.R.3d 1411 (1965). [4] A court's refusal to apply the rule to benefit an unscrupulous defendant should be distinguished from a defendant's standing to raise the defense. 1982See Sherwood & Roberts-Yakima, Inc. v. Leach, 67 Wn.2d 630 , 409 P.2d 160 , 14 A.L.R.3d 1411 (1965). [4] A court's refusal to apply the rule to benefit an unscrupulous defendant should be distinguished from a defendant's standing to raise the defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Recall of Lindquist
green
2 sentences2015Petitioners’ claim was filed for the purpose of political harassment because “[t]he timing allowed the recall petition’s charges to be known before the [prosecuting attorney’s] election but too late for Lindquist to clear his name in a hearing on the merits.” Id. 2015Petitioners' claim was filed for the purpose of political harassment because "[t]he timing allowed the recall petition's charges to be known before the [prosecuting attorney's] election but too late for Lindquist to clear his name in a hearing on the merits." Id. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
McMillan v. Pennsylvania
red
2 sentences2001Id. (emphasis added). 2001Id. (emphasis added). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Covell v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences2012The trial court granted the Petitioners’ motion, concluding that the Ordinance is an unconstitutional tax under Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wn.2d 874 , 905 P.2d 324 (1995), and that it violates RCW 89.08.400(3) in assessing a per parcel rate without a per acre rate. 2012The trial court granted the Petitioners’ motion, concluding that the Ordinance is an unconstitutional tax under Covell v. City of Seattle, 127 Wn.2d 874 , 905 P.2d 324 (1995), and that it violates RCW 89.08.400(3) in assessing a per parcel rate without a per acre rate. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Archie
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
OVERLAKE HOSP. ASS'N v. Department of Health
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Sledge
green
1 sentence2002State v. Sledge, 133 Wash.2d 828, 838-39 , 947 P.2d 1199 (1997). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Sledge
green
1 sentence2002State v. Sledge, 133 Wash.2d 828, 838-39 , 947 P.2d 1199 (1997). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Striker
green
2 sentences1977The purpose of the rule is to insure speedy justice in criminal cases, insofar as reasonably possible. and State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 877 , 557 P.2d 847 (1976): The petitioners do not claim that their defense was prejudiced by the delay. 1977The purpose of the rule is to insure speedy justice in criminal cases, insofar as reasonably possible. and State v. Striker, 87 Wn.2d 870, 877 , 557 P.2d 847 (1976): The petitioners do not claim that their defense was prejudiced by the delay. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.