evidence review standard in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2017 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.

Followed or applied (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board green wash · 1998 2 sentences 2014City of Redmond, 136 Wn.2d at 46 . ¶9 We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), determining whether a sufficient quantity of evidence exists to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order. 2013City of Redmond, 136 Wn.2d at 46 . ¶9 We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), determining whether there exists “ ‘a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.’ ” Id. (quoting Callecod v. Wash. State Patrol, 84 Wn.	7	2013–2014
Callecod v. Washington State Patrol green washctapp · 1997 2 sentences 2013City of Redmond, 136 Wn.2d at 46 . ¶9 We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), determining whether there exists “ ‘a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.’ ” Id. (quoting Callecod v. Wash. State Patrol, 84 Wn. 2013City of Redmond, 136 Wn.2d at 46 . ¶9 We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), determining whether there exists “ ‘a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.’ ” City of Redmond, 136 Wn.2d at 46 (quoting Callecod v. Wash. State Patrol, 84 Wn.	5	2013–2013
Buechel v. Department of Ecology green wash · 1994 2 sentences 2017Buechel v. Dep’t of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196, 202-03 , 884 P.2d 910 (1994). ¶22 We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges to the Board’s factual findings under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) to determine if there is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order. 2017Buechel v. Dep’t of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196, 202-03 , 884 P.2d 910 (1994). ¶22 We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges to the Board’s factual findings under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) to determine if there is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.	1	2017–2017
Guarino v. Interactive Objects, Inc. green washctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2017While this court reviews a trial court's findings of fact for substantial evidence,4 we generally review the propriety of service de novo.5 "Appellate courts give deference to trial courts on a sliding scale based on how much assessment of credibility is required."6 We review issues de novo "[v.]here the record at trial consists entirely of written documents and the trial court therefore was not required to 'assess the credibility or competency of witnesses, and to weigh the evidence, nor reconcile conflicting evidence.'"7 Review for substantial evidence may be more appropriate where "the tria	1	2017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.320 (8) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.526 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.030 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.070 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.280 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.290 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.020 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.3201 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 13 (1982–2025) WA 9 (2013–2017) OR 3 (1988–1995) TX 2 (1991–2015) MS 2 (1986–1986)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check