69 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dreiling v. Jaingreen2 sentences2020I, § 10. 9 Hundtofte v. Encarnación, 181 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014). 10 State v. McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d 795, 801 , 279 P.3d 861 (2012) (citing to Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900, 909 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004)). 11 McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d at 801 . 12 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 16 . 13 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 7 . 8 No. 80321-2-I/2 the public's right to the open administration of justice.” 14 If Article I, section 10 applies, then a court must conduct an Ishikawa analysis before restricting public access to court records or proceedings. 15 Courts use the experience and logic test to determine if Article I, 2020I, § 10. 9 Hundtofte v. Encarnación, 181 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014). 10 State v. McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d 795, 801 , 279 P.3d 861 (2012) (citing to Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900, 909 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004)). 11 McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d at 801 . 12 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 16 . 13 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 7 . 8 No. 80321-2-I/2 the public's right to the open administration of justice.” 14 If Article I, section 10 applies, then a court must conduct an Ishikawa analysis before restricting public access to court records or proceedings. 15 Courts use the experience and logic test to determine if Article I, | 12 | 21 |
Dreiling v. Jaingreen2 sentences2020I, § 10. 9 Hundtofte v. Encarnación, 181 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014). 10 State v. McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d 795, 801 , 279 P.3d 861 (2012) (citing to Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900, 909 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004)). 11 McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d at 801 . 12 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 16 . 13 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 7 . 8 No. 80321-2-I/2 the public's right to the open administration of justice.” 14 If Article I, section 10 applies, then a court must conduct an Ishikawa analysis before restricting public access to court records or proceedings. 15 Courts use the experience and logic test to determine if Article I, 2020I, § 10. 9 Hundtofte v. Encarnación, 181 Wn.2d 1, 7 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014). 10 State v. McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d 795, 801 , 279 P.3d 861 (2012) (citing to Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wn.2d 900, 909 , 93 P.3d 861 (2004)). 11 McEnroe, 174 Wn.2d at 801 . 12 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 16 . 13 Hundtofte, 181 Wn.2d at 7 . 8 No. 80321-2-I/2 the public's right to the open administration of justice.” 14 If Article I, section 10 applies, then a court must conduct an Ishikawa analysis before restricting public access to court records or proceedings. 15 Courts use the experience and logic test to determine if Article I, | 9 | 14 |
Rufer v. Abbott Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2014Dreiling, 151 Wn.2d 900 (extending the Ishikawa analysis for court closure to re quest to seal court records); accord Rufer v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 154 Wn.2d 530 , 543 n.7, 114 P.3d 1182 (2005). 2014Dreiling, 151 Wn.2d 900 (extending the Ishikawa analysis for court closure to re quest to seal court records); accord Rufer v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 154 Wn.2d 530 , 543 n.7, 114 P.3d 1182 (2005). | 7 | 14 |
Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawagreen2 sentences2025The trial court also addressed the third and fourth Ishikawa factors, and ruled that allowing the Does to remain in pseudonym and sealing the Disclosure Document would be “the least restrictive means” and the only “viable alternative” that would be “effective in protecting the interests threatened.” CP at 432; Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 38 . 2024GR 15(c)(3). 6 The five Ishikawa factors the court must consider are (1) the “need for closure or sealing,” (2) that “ ‘[a]nyone present when the closure [and/or sealing] motion is made must be given an opportunity to object to the [suggested restriction],’ ” (3) whether “the requested method for curtailing open access would be both the least restrictive means available and effective in protecting the interests threatened,” (4) “ ‘the competing interests of the defendant and the public,’ ” and (5) that “ ‘[t]he order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its | 6 | 31 |
In Re the Detention of D.F.F.green2 sentences2026Even if the court determines closure is in the best interest of the child, it still must conduct an Ishikawa analysis before closing the courtroom D.F.F., 172 Wn.2d at 41-42 . 2026Even if the court determines closure is in the best interest of the child, it still must conduct an Ishikawa analysis before closing the courtroom D.F.F., 172 Wn.2d at 41-42 . | 5 | 9 |
Allied Daily Newspapers v. Eikenberrygreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Allied Daily Newspapers of Wash. v. Eikenberry, 121 Wn.2d 205, 209-11 , 848 P.2d 1258 (1993) (striking down a statute under article I, section 10 because the statute was not consistent with the Ishikawa factors). 2015See, e.g., Allied Daily Newspapers of Wash. v. Eikenberry, 121 Wn.2d 205, 209-11 , 848 P.2d 1258 (1993) (striking down a statute under article I, section 10 because the statute was not consistent with the Ishikawa factors). | 4 | 7 |
Rufer v. Abbott Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2014Dreiling, 151 Wn.2d 900 (extending the Ishikawa analysis for court closure to re quest to seal court records); accord Rufer v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 154 Wn.2d 530 , 543 n.7, 114 P.3d 1182 (2005). 2014Dreiling, 151 Wn.2d 900 (extending the Ishikawa analysis for court closure to re quest to seal court records); accord Rufer v. Abbot Labs., Inc., 154 Wn.2d 530 , 543 n.7, 114 P.3d 1182 (2005). | 3 | 10 |
Hundtofte v. Encarnacióngreen2 sentences2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 | 3 | 5 |
State v. Bone-Clubgreen2 sentences2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 | 2 | 10 |
Scott v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2015In re Dependency of J.B.S., 122 Wn.2d 131 , 856 P.2d 694 (1993); see also GR 15(c)(1) (applying the same sealing procedure to criminal and juvenile cases), 31(c)(4) (defining “court records” to include juvenile records). ¶67 The court in J.B.S. explained that the Ishikawa analysis provides an appellate court the flexibility it needs to make decisions regarding sealing under GR 15 on a case-by-case basis. 122 Wn.2d at 139 . 2015In re Dependency of J.B.S., 122 Wn.2d 131 , 856 P.2d 694 (1993); see also GR 15(c)(1) (applying the same sealing procedure to criminal and juvenile cases), 31(c)(4) (defining “court records” to include juvenile records). ¶67 The court in J.B.S. explained that the Ishikawa analysis provides an appellate court the flexibility it needs to make decisions regarding sealing under GR 15 on a case-by-case basis. 122 Wn.2d at 139 . | 2 | 6 |
State v. Chengreen2 sentences2015See State v. Chen, 178 Wn.2d 350, 356 , 309 P.3d 410 (2013) (rejecting the proposition that the Ishikawa factors apply only when there is not statutory guidance for closure). 2015See State v. Chen, 178 Wn.2d 350, 356 , 309 P.3d 410 (2013) (rejecting the proposition that the Ishikawa factors apply only when there is not statutory guidance for closure). | 2 | 6 |
State v. S.J.C.green2 sentences2024See State v. S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d 408, 412 , 352 P.3d 749 (2015) (“Whether an Ishikawa analysis is necessary depends on whether article I, section 10 applies.”). 2024See State v. S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d 408, 412 , 352 P.3d 749 (2015) (“Whether an Ishikawa analysis is necessary depends on whether article I, section 10 applies.”). | 2 | 3 |
| United States v. Amodeogreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Milesgreen2 sentences2015“Personal financial information, such as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to be private, not public.” Boston Herald, 321 F.3d at 190 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)); see State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007). 2015“Personal financial information, such as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to be private, not public.” Boston Herald, 321 F.3d at 190 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)); see State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Milesgreen2 sentences2015“Personal financial information, such as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to be private, not public.” Boston Herald, 321 F.3d at 190 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)); see State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007). 2015“Personal financial information, such as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to be private, not public.” Boston Herald, 321 F.3d at 190 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)); see State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hirschfeldergreen2 sentences2015See Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566, 577-78 , 316 P.3d 482 (2014) (statute triggers heightened scrutiny under state equal protection clause where it burdens “both ‘an important right and a semi-suspect class not accountable for its status’ ” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn.2d 536, 550 , 242 P.3d 876 (2010))). ■ ¶69 I provide this list only to underscore the fact that the bulk of the majority’s opinion is dicta. 2015See Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566, 577-78 , 316 P.3d 482 (2014) (statute triggers heightened scrutiny under state equal protection clause where it burdens “both ‘an important right and a semi-suspect class not accountable for its status’ ” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn.2d 536, 550 , 242 P.3d 876 (2010))). ■ ¶69 I provide this list only to underscore the fact that the bulk of the majority’s opinion is dicta. | 2 | 2 |
Schroeder v. Weighallgreen2 sentences2015See Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566, 577-78 , 316 P.3d 482 (2014) (statute triggers heightened scrutiny under state equal protection clause where it burdens “both ‘an important right and a semi-suspect class not accountable for its status’ ” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn.2d 536, 550 , 242 P.3d 876 (2010))). ■ ¶69 I provide this list only to underscore the fact that the bulk of the majority’s opinion is dicta. 2015See Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566, 577-78 , 316 P.3d 482 (2014) (statute triggers heightened scrutiny under state equal protection clause where it burdens “both ‘an important right and a semi-suspect class not accountable for its status’ ” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wn.2d 536, 550 , 242 P.3d 876 (2010))). ■ ¶69 I provide this list only to underscore the fact that the bulk of the majority’s opinion is dicta. | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Hirschfeldergreen | 2 | 2 |
John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr.green2 sentences2026The court should address each of the Ishikawa factors in its findings and conclusions, and the findings and 14 No. 87781-0-I/15 conclusions should be “ ‘as specific as possible rather than conclusory.’ ” Doe v. Thurston County, 4 Wn.3d 906 , 920, 569 P.3d 1101 (2025) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting John Doe G v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 199 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018)). 2026The court should address each of the Ishikawa factors in its findings and conclusions, and the findings and 14 No. 87781-0-I/15 conclusions should be “ ‘as specific as possible rather than conclusory.’ ” Doe v. Thurston County, 4 Wn.3d 906 , 920, 569 P.3d 1101 (2025) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting John Doe G v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 199 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018)). | 1 | 8 |
State v. Bone-Clubgreen2 sentences2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 | 1 | 8 |
In re the Marriage of Treselergreen2 sentences2019In re Marriage of Treseler, 145 Wn. 2010Clark argued below that the Ishikawa criteria have to be met for each sealed document whether or not the records are ultimately reviewed by a court or relied upon in connection with any motion, citing this court’s recent decision in In re Marriage of Treseler, 145 Wn. | 1 | 5 |
| State v. Waldongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Wisegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tucker v. Department of Social & Health Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Federated Publications, Inc. v. Kurtz
green
2 sentences2024GR 15(c)(3). 6 The five Ishikawa factors the court must consider are (1) the “need for closure or sealing,” (2) that “ ‘[a]nyone present when the closure [and/or sealing] motion is made must be given an opportunity to object to the [suggested restriction],’ ” (3) whether “the requested method for curtailing open access would be both the least restrictive means available and effective in protecting the interests threatened,” (4) “ ‘the competing interests of the defendant and the public,’ ” and (5) that “ ‘[t]he order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its 2024GR 15(c)(3). 6 The five Ishikawa factors the court must consider are (1) the “need for closure or sealing,” (2) that “ ‘[a]nyone present when the closure [and/or sealing] motion is made must be given an opportunity to object to the [suggested restriction],’ ” (3) whether “the requested method for curtailing open access would be both the least restrictive means available and effective in protecting the interests threatened,” (4) “ ‘the competing interests of the defendant and the public,’ ” and (5) that “ ‘[t]he order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its | 3 | 2005–2024 |
Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic
green
2 sentences2021Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 801-03 , 246 P.3d 768 (2011) (Ishikawa analysis was unnecessary but trial court needed to follow requirements of GR 15). 2013Moreover, the lead opinion’s misstep results in an unworkable rule, requiring courts to distinguish between court records that are subject to article I, section 10 and those that are not based on a determination of which filings are “relevant.” Yet, what is relevant will be impossible to know before the court renders a decision; for example, the very records the lead opinion today concludes may be sealed without regard to the Ishikawa test would have been subject to that test had a motion to seal been brought between the time they were filed and the time the case settled and the summary judgme | 3 | 2013–2021 |
Yakima v. Yakima Herald-Republic
green
2 sentences2021Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 801-03 , 246 P.3d 768 (2011) (Ishikawa analysis was unnecessary but trial court needed to follow requirements of GR 15). 2013Moreover, the lead opinion’s misstep results in an unworkable rule, requiring courts to distinguish between court records that are subject to article I, section 10 and those that are not based on a determination of which filings are “relevant.” Yet, what is relevant will be impossible to know before the court renders a decision; for example, the very records the lead opinion today concludes may be sealed without regard to the Ishikawa test would have been subject to that test had a motion to seal been brought between the time they were filed and the time the case settled and the summary judgme | 3 | 2013–2021 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 2020To determine whether a closure was justified, we apply a three-part test.24 First, we apply the experience and logic test 20 State v. Smith, 181 Wn.2d 508, 513 , 334 P.3d 1049 (2014). 21See Hundtofte v. Encarnacion, 181 Wn.2d 1, 6 , 330 P.3d 168 (2014) (analyzing a court’s decision to permit alteration of a case caption to use initials instead of names as a redaction). 22 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 , 640 P.2d 716 (1982). 23 Doe G. v. Dep’t of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201 , 410 P.3d 1156 (2018) (citing State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254, 261-62 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995)). 24 Smith, 181 | 3 | 2015–2020 |
State v. McEnry
green
2 sentences2016We believe Doe made a stronger and more particularized showing than occurred in McEnry and conclude that he did satisfy the first prong of the Ishikawa standard. ¶14 In McEnry , the defendant had been convicted of unlawful manufacture of marijuana and unlawful possession of a firearm. 124 Wn. 2016We believe Doe made a stronger and more particularized showing than occurred in McEnry and conclude that he did satisfy the first prong of the Ishikawa standard. ¶14 In McEnry , the defendant had been convicted of unlawful manufacture of marijuana and unlawful possession of a firearm. 124 Wn. | 3 | 2009–2016 |
State v. Waldon
green
2 sentences2013App. 952, 958 , 202 P.3d 325 (2009) (noting that the Ishikawa factors must be considered in order to “restrict access to court proceedings or records”). 2013App. 952, 958 , 202 P.3d 325 (2009) (noting that the Ishikawa factors must be considered in order to “restrict access to court proceedings or records”). | 3 | 2013–2014 |
United States v. Connolly
green
2 sentences2015“Personal financial information, such as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to be private, not public.” Boston Herald, 321 F.3d at 190 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)); see State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007). 2015“Personal financial information, such as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to be private, not public.” Boston Herald, 321 F.3d at 190 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)); see State v. Miles, 160 Wn.2d 236 , 156 P.3d 864 (2007). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In re the Detention of Morgan
green
2 sentences2015Juvenile court records that meet statutory sealing requirements have not historically been open to the press and the general public ¶17 To determine whether experience supports the application of article I, section 10 (and thus the Ishikawa factors) to statutory motions to seal juvenile records, we must determine “£ “whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public.” ’ ” Morgan, 180 Wn.2d at 325 (quoting Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (quoting Press-Enter. 2015Juvenile court records that meet statutory sealing requirements have not historically been open to the press and the general public ¶17 To determine whether experience supports the application of article I, section 10 (and thus the Ishikawa factors) to statutory motions to seal juvenile records, we must determine “£ “whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public.” ’ ” Morgan, 180 Wn.2d at 325 (quoting Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (quoting Press-Enter. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Sublett
green
2 sentences2015Juvenile court records that meet statutory sealing requirements have not historically been open to the press and the general public ¶17 To determine whether experience supports the application of article I, section 10 (and thus the Ishikawa factors) to statutory motions to seal juvenile records, we must determine “£ “whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public.” ’ ” Morgan, 180 Wn.2d at 325 (quoting Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (quoting Press-Enter. 2015Juvenile court records that meet statutory sealing requirements have not historically been open to the press and the general public ¶17 To determine whether experience supports the application of article I, section 10 (and thus the Ishikawa factors) to statutory motions to seal juvenile records, we must determine “£ “whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public.” ’ ” Morgan, 180 Wn.2d at 325 (quoting Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (quoting Press-Enter. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. C.R.H.
neutral
2 sentences2015In re Dependency of J.B.S., 122 Wn.2d 131, 137-38 , 856 P.2d 694 (1993); State v. C.R.H., 107 Wn. 2015In re Dependency of J.B.S., 122 Wn.2d 131, 137-38 , 856 P.2d 694 (1993); State v. C.R.H., 107 Wn. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riverside
green
2 sentences2015Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S. Ct. 2735 , 92 L. 2015Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 , 106 S. Ct. 2735 , 92 L. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| King v. Olympic Pipe Line Co. green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| In Re Marriage of Treseler and Treadwell neutral | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| In Re Detention of DFF green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Breazeale green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| Matsen v. Kaiser green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Parker green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| In re the Marriage of R.E. neutral | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Breazeale green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Orange green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Easterling green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| D.A.H. v. Seattle Times Co. neutral | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| In Re Orange green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| cluster 782262 green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| In re Adoption of M.S.M.-P. neutral | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| N.P. v. A.K. green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Richardson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Department of Social & Health Services v. Parvin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| John Doe G v. Department of Corrections green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. McEnroe green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Love green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Doe P v. Thurston County green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Arizona v. Fulminante green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Njonge green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Department of Social & Health Services v. Parvin green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Momah green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Momah green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.