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.
10 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.green2 sentences2026App. 2d at 899; see Ford, 592 U.S. at 359 . 2026App. 2d at 899; see Ford, 592 U.S. at 359 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Webergreen1 sentence2016See id. (holding that a cumulative error argument failed when defendant failed to establish prosecutorial misconduct). | 1 | 1 |
Leslie Lowenfield v. Robert H. Butler, Sr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondentsgreen2 sentences1990Lowenfield , at 187; see Lowenfield v. Butler, 485 U.S. 995 , 99 L.Ed.2d 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1456 (1988) (denying motion for stay pending certiorari). 1990Lowenfield , at 187; see Lowenfield v. Butler, 485 U.S. 995 , 99 L.Ed.2d 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1456 (1988) (denying motion for stay pending certiorari). | 1 | 1 |
Lowenfield v. Butler, Wardengreen2 sentences1990Lowenfield , at 187; see Lowenfield v. Butler, 485 U.S. 995 , 99 L.Ed.2d 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1456 (1988) (denying motion for stay pending certiorari). 1990Lowenfield , at 187; see Lowenfield v. Butler, 485 U.S. 995 , 99 L.Ed.2d 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1456 (1988) (denying motion for stay pending certiorari). | 1 | 1 |
Udolf v. Plan & Zoning Commission of West Hartfordgreen2 sentences1990Lowenfield , at 187; see Lowenfield v. Butler, 485 U.S. 995 , 99 L.Ed.2d 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1456 (1988) (denying motion for stay pending certiorari). 1990Lowenfield , at 187; see Lowenfield v. Butler, 485 U.S. 995 , 99 L.Ed.2d 686 , 108 S.Ct. 1456 (1988) (denying motion for stay pending certiorari). | 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. Ford
green
2 sentences2011Yet, despite Ford's objection, "California statutes under which Ford was convicted were not offered into evidence," "[n]o comparable Washington statutes were identified," and the trial court apparently "did not engage *456 in any comparison of statutory elements." Ford, 137 Wash.2d at 475-76 , 973 P.2d 452 . ¶ 29 The State conceded on appeal that it had not introduced evidence to support its felony comparability classification of Ford's California convictions. 2011Yet, despite Ford’s objection, “California statutes under which Ford was convicted were not offered into evidence,” “[n]o comparable Washington statutes were identified,” and the trial court apparently “did not engage in any comparison of statutory elements.” Ford, 137 Wn.2d at 475-76 . ¶29 The State conceded on appeal that it had not introduced evidence to support its felony comparability classification of Ford’s California convictions. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Ford
neutral
2 sentences1999The Court of Appeals characterized Ford's claimed error as "pure speculation" because "the record contains no information with which we can evaluate Ford's claim that a sentencing error was possibly made...." Ford, 87 Wash.App. at 800 , 942 P.2d 1064 . 1999The Court of Appeals characterized Ford's claimed error as "pure speculation" because "the record contains no information with which we can evaluate Ford's claim that a sentencing error was possibly made...." Ford, 87 Wash.App. at 800 , 942 P.2d 1064 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
SeaHAVN, Ltd. v. Bank
green
2 sentences2026Taebi refers to a part of this court’s analysis in SeaHAVN, Ltd. v. Glitnir Bank, wherein we considered the issue of whether plaintiff SeaHAVN established specific personal jurisdiction over defendant Glitnir under RCW 4.28.185(1)(b), which authorizes long-arm jurisdiction based on a defendant’s commission of a tortious act within Washington that is established “when the injury occurs within our state.” 154 Wn. 2026Taebi refers to a part of this court’s analysis in SeaHAVN, Ltd. v. Glitnir Bank, wherein we considered the issue of whether plaintiff SeaHAVN established specific personal jurisdiction over defendant Glitnir under RCW 4.28.185(1)(b), which authorizes long-arm jurisdiction based on a defendant’s commission of a tortious act within Washington that is established “when the injury occurs within our state.” 154 Wn. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Watkins
green
2 sentences2025Id. 17 No. 39905-2-III State v. Sanchez After considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court’s response was not designed to force or compel a decision, nor was the court’s conduct improper. 2025Id. 17 No. 39905-2-III State v. Sanchez After considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court’s response was not designed to force or compel a decision, nor was the court’s conduct improper. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2019Ford’s defense was that he was not the driver. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. 2019Ford’s defense was that he was not the driver. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Depaz
green
1 sentence2011E.g., State v. Depaz, 165 Wash.2d 842, 854 , 204 P.3d 217 (2009). [1] The lead opinion makes this point early in its opinion, but in the last paragraph bewilderingly concludes that Mr. Ford's challenge to the verdict fails because, among other reasons, he has not shown manifest constitutional error. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Depaz
green
1 sentence2011E.g., State v. Depaz, 165 Wash.2d 842, 854 , 204 P.3d 217 (2009). [1] The lead opinion makes this point early in its opinion, but in the last paragraph bewilderingly concludes that Mr. Ford's challenge to the verdict fails because, among other reasons, he has not shown manifest constitutional error. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences2011Yet, despite Ford's objection, "California statutes under which Ford was convicted were not offered into evidence," "[n]o comparable Washington statutes were identified," and the trial court apparently "did not engage *456 in any comparison of statutory elements." Ford, 137 Wash.2d at 475-76 , 973 P.2d 452 . ¶ 29 The State conceded on appeal that it had not introduced evidence to support its felony comparability classification of Ford's California convictions. 2011But it asserted that (1) a timely express objection by Ford at sentencing would have allowed the State to develop the record to support its classifications, Ford, 137 Wash.2d at 478 , 973 P.2d 452 ; and (2) thus, Ford's failure to object was the reason for the absence of additional evidence. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.