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 3 courts 1984–2017 0 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. Saltarelligreen2 sentences2014See Saltarelli, 98 Wn.2d at 361 (“ER 404(b) is only the starting point for an inquiry into the admissibility of evidence of other crimes; it should not be read in isolation, but in conjunction with other rules of evidence, in particular ER 402 and 403.”). 2014See Saltarelli, 98 Wn.2d at 361 ("ER 404(b) is only the starting point for an inquiry into the admissibility of evidence of other crimes; it should not be read in isolation, but in conjunction with other rules of evidence, in particular ER 402 and 403."). | 2 | 2 |
Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc.green2 sentences1985Accord, Anthony v. Koppers Co., 496 Pa. 119, 123 , 436 A.2d 181 (1981) (discovery rule does not apply to wrongful death statute which provided that a cause of action "shall be brought within one year after the death, and not thereafter" (italics ours) since the Legislature intended death, and not discovery, to be the time at which the cause of action accrues). 1985Accord, Anthony v. Koppers Co., 496 Pa. 119, 123 , 436 A.2d 181 (1981) (discovery rule does not apply to wrongful death statute which provided that a cause of action "shall be brought within one year after the death, and not thereafter" (italics ours) since the Legislature intended death, and not discovery, to be the time at which the cause of action accrues). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
NATIONAL ELEC. CONTRACTORS v. Riveland
green
2 sentences2009Id. 2009Id. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Sleasman v. City of Lacey
green
1 sentence2017That state statute provides: When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion thereof, except as provided in RCW 3 RCW 36.70C.130(1). 4 Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 643 , 151 P.3d 990 (2007). 5 Milestone Homes, Inc. v. City of Bonney Lake, 145 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sleasman v. City of Lacey
green
1 sentence2017That state statute provides: When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion thereof, except as provided in RCW 3 RCW 36.70C.130(1). 4 Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 643 , 151 P.3d 990 (2007). 5 Milestone Homes, Inc. v. City of Bonney Lake, 145 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Milestone Homes, Inc. v. City of Bonney Lake
green
1 sentence2017That state statute provides: When any person is interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion thereof, except as provided in RCW 3 RCW 36.70C.130(1). 4 Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 643 , 151 P.3d 990 (2007). 5 Milestone Homes, Inc. v. City of Bonney Lake, 145 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Land
green
1 sentence2017"Two offenses are not the same when 'there is an element in each offense which is not included in the other, and proof of one offense would not necessarily prove the other." Land 172 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Magers
green
1 sentence2014Here, we agree with Gunderson that the prejudice of admitting a prior domestic violence incident involving Gunderson and Christina outweighs its probative value. ¶14 In State v. Magers, we took great care to specifically establish that “evidence that [the defendant] had been arrested for domestic violence and fighting and that a no-contact order had been entered following his arrest was relevant to enable the jury to assess the cred ibility of [the complaining witness] who gave conflicting statements about [the defendant’s] conduct” 164 Wn.2d 174, 186 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008) (plurality opinion) | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Magers
green
1 sentence2014Here, we agree with Gunderson that the prejudice of admitting a prior domestic violence incident involving Gunderson and Christina outweighs its probative value. ¶14 In State v. Magers, we took great care to specifically establish that “evidence that [the defendant] had been arrested for domestic violence and fighting and that a no-contact order had been entered following his arrest was relevant to enable the jury to assess the cred ibility of [the complaining witness] who gave conflicting statements about [the defendant’s] conduct” 164 Wn.2d 174, 186 , 189 P.3d 126 (2008) (plurality opinion) | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Cosmopolitan Engineering Group, Inc. v. Ondeo Degremont, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011The starting point for its analysis was the American rule, the general rule in Washington that each party in a civil action will pay its own attorney fees and costs. 159 Wn.2d at 296 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington
green
1 sentence2010(Emphasis added.) Your first question is whether the italicized language quoted above generally allows the county treasurer to allocate interest earned on a county's own funds into the county current expense fund, or whether this provision applies only to the funds of other municipal corporations. [original page 3] At the outset, we note that the starting point for analysis is the common law rule that "interest follows principal." Washington Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Washington , 271 F.3d 835 , 874 (9th Cir. 2001), affirmed sub nom., Brown v. Legal Found. of Washington , 538 U.S. 216 (20 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Washington Legal Foundation v. Legal Foundation Of Washington
green
1 sentence2010(Emphasis added.) Your first question is whether the italicized language quoted above generally allows the county treasurer to allocate interest earned on a county's own funds into the county current expense fund, or whether this provision applies only to the funds of other municipal corporations. [original page 3] At the outset, we note that the starting point for analysis is the common law rule that "interest follows principal." Washington Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Washington , 271 F.3d 835 , 874 (9th Cir. 2001), affirmed sub nom., Brown v. Legal Found. of Washington , 538 U.S. 216 (20 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Burgett v. Texas
green
2 sentences1984I The starting point in our analysis is Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 , 19 L. 1984I The starting point in our analysis is Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 , 19 L. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.