protection order violation in Washington

11 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 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 (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Rhorergreen colo · 1998 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004And notably, the Colorado Supreme Court has found that a protection order violation can serve as a predicate crime under its burglary statute. 7 People v. Rhorer, 967 P.2d 147, 148 (Colo. 1998). 2004And notably, the Colorado Supreme Court has found that a protection order violation can serve as a predicate crime under its burglary statute. [7] People v. Rhorer, 967 P.2d 147, 148 (1998).	2	2

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 (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Parmelee green washctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2015Parmelee, 108 Wn. 2015Parmelee, 108 Wn.	2	2015–2015
State v. Stinton green washctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2014App. 569, 574-77 , 89 P.3d 717 (2004), we did not expressly hold that determining whether a protection order violation was a crime against a person was a question of law. 2014App. 569 , 574- 77, 89 P. 3d 717 ( 2004), we did not expressly hold that determining whether a protection order violation was a crime against a person was a question of law.	2	2014–2014
State v. Cord green wash · 1985 2 sentences 2008Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 874 -75 (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wn.2d 361, 367 , 693 P.2d 81 (1985)). ¶9 Under RCW 10.99.050(2)(a), willful violation of a protection order issued under RCW 10.99.050 is punishable, and knowledge is a necessary statutory element of a protection order violation. 2008Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 874 -75 (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wn.2d 361, 367 , 693 P.2d 81 (1985)). ¶9 Under RCW 10.99.050(2)(a), willful violation of a protection order issued under RCW 10.99.050 is punishable, and knowledge is a necessary statutory element of a protection order violation.	2	2008–2008
State v. Thomas green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2008Thomas, 150 Wn.2d at 874 -75 (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wn.2d 361, 367 , 693 P.2d 81 (1985)). ¶9 Under RCW 10.99.050(2)(a), willful violation of a protection order issued under RCW 10.99.050 is punishable, and knowledge is a necessary statutory element of a protection order violation. 2008Thomas, 150 Wash.2d at 874-75 , 83 P.3d 970 (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wash.2d 361, 367 , 693 P.2d 81 (1985)). ¶ 9 Under RCW 10.99.050(2)(a), willful violation of a protection order issued under RCW 10.99.050 is punishable, and knowledge is a necessary statutory element of a protection order violation.	2	2008–2008
Blackmon v. Blackmon green washctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2025App. 715, 722 , 230 P.3d 233 (2010).	1	2025–2025
Blackmon v. Blackmon green washctapp · 2010 1 sentence 2025Under RCW 7.105.200(5), protection order hearings “may be conducted upon the information provided in the sworn petition, live testimony of the parties should they choose to testify, and any additional sworn declarations.” Accordingly, evidence in a protection order hearing “may contain hearsay or be wholly documentary.” Blackmon v. Blackmon, 155 Wn.	1	2025–2025
State v. Kintz green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2020Regarding malicious mischief and theft, Ms. Amezcua Limon argues the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove the amount of value necessary to elevate the degree of offense. 4 In addition to her sufficiency arguments, Ms. Amezcua Limon claims there was an improper variance between the charge of malicious mischief and the court’s trial 4 The standard of review applicable to a sufficiency challenge requires that we view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the State” and asks whether “any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2	1	2020–2020
State v. Kintz green wash · 2010 1 sentence 2020Regarding malicious mischief and theft, Ms. Amezcua Limon argues the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove the amount of value necessary to elevate the degree of offense. 4 In addition to her sufficiency arguments, Ms. Amezcua Limon claims there was an improper variance between the charge of malicious mischief and the court’s trial 4 The standard of review applicable to a sufficiency challenge requires that we view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the State” and asks whether “any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Kintz, 169 Wn.2	1	2020–2020
State v. Boyd neutral washctapp · 2011 1 sentence 2012State v. Boyd, noted at 164 Wn.	1	2012–2012
State v. Thomas green wash · 2004 1 sentence 2008Thomas, 150 Wash.2d at 874-75 , 83 P.3d 970 (citing State v. Cord, 103 Wash.2d 361, 367 , 693 P.2d 81 (1985)). ¶ 9 Under RCW 10.99.050(2)(a), willful violation of a protection order issued under RCW 10.99.050 is punishable, and knowledge is a necessary statutory element of a protection order violation.	1	2008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 10.99.020 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.46.060 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.025 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.020 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.52.040 (3)

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

OH 37 (2004–2026) WA 11 (2004–2025) NE 5 (2017–2025) ND 3 (2007–2017) CO 2 (2021–2026) ME 2 (2018–2018)

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