baseline rule in Washington

2015Gonzalez-Lopez. 548 U.S. at 148 .

2015Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148 .

2024Eisen, 417 U.S. at 173 .

2019Thus, the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-parties, may not appeal a defendant’s criminal sentence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Gault, 39 A.3d 1105, 1113-14 (Conn. ~ Our courts have also allowed limited intervention by nonparties in criminal matters to challenge trial court orders sealing records. ~ Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 801 , 246 P.3d 768 (2011), overruling State v. Bianchi, 92 Wn.2d 91 , 593 P.2d 1330 (1979).

2019Thus, the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-parties, may not appeal a defendant’s criminal sentence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Gault, 39 A.3d 1105, 1113-14 (Conn. ~ Our courts have also allowed limited intervention by nonparties in criminal matters to challenge trial court orders sealing records. ~ Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 801 , 246 P.3d 768 (2011), overruling State v. Bianchi, 92 Wn.2d 91 , 593 P.2d 1330 (1979).

2019Thus, the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-parties, may not appeal a defendant’s criminal sentence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Gault, 39 A.3d 1105, 1113-14 (Conn. ~ Our courts have also allowed limited intervention by nonparties in criminal matters to challenge trial court orders sealing records. ~ Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 801 , 246 P.3d 768 (2011), overruling State v. Bianchi, 92 Wn.2d 91 , 593 P.2d 1330 (1979).

2019In Herald-Republic, the court determined that such intervention by a nonparty under GR 15(e) for the purpose of moving to unseal court records may occur only “after the criminal trial is completed or the defendant has pleaded guilty.” 170 Wn.2d at 801 n.1 1. 10 No. 77627-4-Ill 1 2012) (dismissing victim’s appeal to enforce rights afforded under state’s constitutional crime victims’ rights amendment because only the State and the accused are parties to a criminal action).

2019Thus, the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-parties, may not appeal a defendant’s criminal sentence.” (citation omitted)); State v. Gault, 39 A.3d 1105, 1113-14 (Conn. ~ Our courts have also allowed limited intervention by nonparties in criminal matters to challenge trial court orders sealing records. ~ Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 801 , 246 P.3d 768 (2011), overruling State v. Bianchi, 92 Wn.2d 91 , 593 P.2d 1330 (1979).

2017In Anderson, this court explained that, because the baseline presumption is a defendant’s innocence, an implication that the jury has an initial affirmative duty to convict is improper. 153 Wn.

2012The trial court properly determined in response to the first round of cross motions for summary judgment that Mr. Kofmehl asserted a valid affirmative defense to Baseline’s claim for specific performance. ¶24 Nonetheless, Washington law is well settled that “ ‘a vendee under an agreement for the sale and purchase of property which does not satisfy the statute of frauds, cannot recover payments made upon the purchase price if the vendor has not repudiated the contract but is ready, willing, and able to perform in accordance therewith, even though the contract is not enforceable against the vend

2012The trial court properly determined in response to the first round of cross motions for summary judgment that Mr. Kofmehl asserted a valid affirmative defense to Baseline’s claim for specific performance. ¶24 Nonetheless, Washington law is well settled that “ ‘a vendee under an agreement for the sale and purchase of property which does not satisfy the statute of frauds, cannot recover payments made upon the purchase price if the vendor has not repudiated the contract but is ready, willing, and able to perform in accordance therewith, even though the contract is not enforceable against the vend

2012Washington courts have “consistently denied” recovery of earnest money paid under such circumstances, “in accord with the great weight of authority.” Id. at 712; Home Realty, 146 Wn.