66 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2025Therefore, we do not address the Fourth Amendment challenge. 13 No. 59255-0-II safeguards”; and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . b. 2025Finally, courts assess the government’s interest, “including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would 7 We note that the state-wide efforts to vacate UPCS convictions pursuant to Blake were well- publicized and extensively covered by the press. 16 No. 59255-0-II entail.” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . | 7 | 63 |
State v. Maulegreen2 sentences2011See State v. Maule, 112 Wash.App. 887, 893 , 51 P.3d 811 , 77 P.3d 362 (2002) ("the State's interest in testimony from a witness who is incompetent is nil"). 2011See State v. Maule, 112 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
Tellevik v. Real Property Known as 31641green2 sentences2014Rutherford St., 120 Wn.2d 68, 78 , 838 P.2d 111 (1992) (adopting and applying the Mathews test). ¶19 The analysis in Post illustrates the application of the Mathews test in a setting similar, but not identical, to that presented here. 2014Rutherford St., 120 Wn.2d 68, 78 , 838 P.2d 111 (1992) (adopting and applying the Mathews test). ¶19 The analysis in Post illustrates the application of the Mathews test in a setting similar, but not identical, to that presented here. | 1 | 6 |
Post v. City of Tacomagreen2 sentences2024Hardee v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn.2d 300, 313 , 217 P.3d 1179 (2009) (quoting Mathews v. 2024Hardee v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn.2d 300, 313 , 217 P.3d 1179 (2009) (quoting Mathews v. | 1 | 5 |
City of Bellevue v. Leegreen1 sentence2019Under Mathews, courts consider three factors in determining whether the process afforded to an individual was sufficient to satisfy the due process clause: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second,the risk ofan erroneous deprivation ofsuch interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 424 U.S. at 33 | 1 | 1 |
City of Bellevue v. Leegreen1 sentence2019Under Mathews, courts consider three factors in determining whether the process afforded to an individual was sufficient to satisfy the due process clause: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second,the risk ofan erroneous deprivation ofsuch interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 424 U.S. at 33 | 1 | 1 |
In re the Marriage of Kinggreen1 sentence2016Those factors are '"[f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official -21 No. 69117-1-1 (consol. with No. 69610-6-l)/22 action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.'" King, 162 Wn.2d at 395 (alteration in original) (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 ). | 1 | 1 |
In Re The Detention Of Mark A. Blackgreen2 sentences2015In Mathews , the United States Supreme Court articulated a balancing test to aid in determining when, and to what extent, procedural protections are required: [D]ue process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable *397 value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens 2015App. 641, 649-50 , 357 P.3d 91 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maulegreen1 sentence2011See State v. Maule, 112 Wash.App. 887, 893 , 51 P.3d 811 , 77 P.3d 362 (2002) ("the State's interest in testimony from a witness who is incompetent is nil"). | 1 | 1 |
Dixon v. Lovegreen1 sentence1982Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. at 112-13. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Post v. City of Tacoma
green
2 sentences2024Hardee v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn.2d 300, 313 , 217 P.3d 1179 (2009) (quoting Mathews v. 2024Hardee v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn.2d 300, 313 , 217 P.3d 1179 (2009) (quoting Mathews v. | 3 | 2011–2024 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2011Under the Mathews balancing test, cited above, a court must consider three factors in identifying the due process that a person is entitled to receive in a particular circumstance: (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the official action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the [g]overnment's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would 2011Under the Mathews balancing test, cited above, a court must consider three factors in identifying the due process that a person is entitled to receive in a particular circumstance: (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the [g]overnment’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would | 3 | 2000–2011 |
Addington v. Texas
green
2 sentences2010Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . ¶17 The standard of proof is a procedural safeguard that serves to “allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S. Ct. 1804 , 60 L. 2010Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . ¶17 The standard of proof is a procedural safeguard that serves to “allocate the risk of error between the litigants and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimate decision.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S. Ct. 1804 , 60 L. | 3 | 2010–2010 |
In re the Detention of Morgan
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 396-397 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 , 96 S. Ct. 893, 903 , 47 L. 2015In Mathews , the United States Supreme Court articulated a balancing test to aid in determining when, and to what extent, procedural protections are required: [D]ue process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable *397 value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens | 2 | 2015–2024 |
Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences2024Hardee v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn.2d 300, 313 , 217 P.3d 1179 (2009) (quoting Mathews v. 2024Hardee v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 172 Wn.2d 1, 10 , 256 P.3d 339 (2011): First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wn.2d 300, 313 , 217 P.3d 1179 (2009) (quoting Mathews v. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Goldberg v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2006The third factor of the Mathews test is “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 263-71 , 90 S. Ct. 1011 , 25 L. 2006The third factor of the Mathews test is “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 263-71 , 90 S. Ct. 1011 , 25 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Matter of Harris
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 335 , quoted in In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 221 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986); Dunner, 100 Wn.2d at 839 ; In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276, 285 , 654 P.2d 109 (1982). 2005Id. at 335 , quoted in In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 221 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986); Dunner, 100 Wn.2d at 839 ; In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276, 285 , 654 P.2d 109 (1982). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re the Detention of LaBelle
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 335 , quoted in In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 221 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986); Dunner, 100 Wn.2d at 839 ; In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276, 285 , 654 P.2d 109 (1982). 2005Id. at 335 , quoted in In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 221 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986); Dunner, 100 Wn.2d at 839 ; In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276, 285 , 654 P.2d 109 (1982). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Dunner v. McLaughlin
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 335 , quoted in In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 221 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986); Dunner, 100 Wn.2d at 839 ; In re Harris, 98 Wn.2d 276, 285 , 654 P.2d 109 (1982). 2005Id. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , quoted in In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wash.2d 196, 221 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986); Dunner, 100 Wash.2d at 839 , 676 P.2d 444 ; In re Harris, 98 Wash.2d 276, 285 , 654 P.2d 109 (1982). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Bellevue School District v. E.S.
green
1 sentence2018This analysis requires us to compare the status quo to the procedures sought and identify(1)"the private interest that will be affected by the official action"; (2)"the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards"; and (3)"the [g]ovemment's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 ; E.S., 171 Wn.2d at 705 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Salerno
green
1 sentence2013Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . ¶58 As in Salerno , the State’s interest in preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal. 481 U.S. at 747 (citing Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 104 S. Ct. 2403 , 81 L. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Schall v. Martin
green
2 sentences2013Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . ¶58 As in Salerno , the State’s interest in preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal. 481 U.S. at 747 (citing Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 104 S. Ct. 2403 , 81 L. 2013Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335 . ¶58 As in Salerno , the State’s interest in preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal. 481 U.S. at 747 (citing Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 , 104 S. Ct. 2403 , 81 L. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Nguyen v. Department of Health
green
1 sentence2006The Nguyen majority held that this third factor only "relates to practical and financial burdens to be imposed upon the government were it to adopt a possible substitute procedure" and "does not relate to the interest which the government attempts to vindicate through the procedure itself." 144 Wash.2d at 532 , 29 P.3d 689 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Sinka
green
1 sentence2006These requirements are flexible, however, and depend on a balancing of the following factors: “First, the private interest that will he affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Sinka, 92 Wn.2d at 565 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nguyen v. STATE HEALTH MED. QUALITY ASSUR.
green
1 sentence2006The Nguyen majority held that this third factor only "relates to practical and financial burdens to be imposed upon the government were it to adopt a possible substitute procedure" and "does not relate to the interest which the government attempts to vindicate through the procedure itself." 144 Wash.2d at 532 , 29 P.3d 689 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
MacKey v. Montrym
green
2 sentences2006Ed. 2d 18 (1975), cited with approval in Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 , 99 S. Ct. 2612 , 61 L. 2006Ed. 2d 18 (1975), cited with approval in Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1 , 99 S. Ct. 2612 , 61 L. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. James
green
1 sentence1996James, 38 Wn. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.