9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Wilfredo Lopezgreen1 sentence2026The majority cites United States v. Lopez as an example of when the rule of completeness can be used to correct a misleading impression. 4 F.4th 706, 712 (9th Cir. 2021). | 1 | 1 |
Mulligan v. Pfizer Inc.green1 sentence1997In determining whether such a requirement is preempted, the determinative factor is how the requirement is interpreted and enforced by the State or local government and not the literal language of the statute, which may be identical to a provision in the act.” 6 An example of a state requirement that relates to a particular device was noted in Mulligan v. Pfizer, Inc., 850 F. Supp. 633, 635-36 (S.D. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Venho v. Ostrander Railway & Timber Co.
green
2 sentences2004Venho v. Ostrander Ry. & Timber Co., 185 Wash. 138 , 52 P.2d 1267 (1936). 2004Venho v. Ostrander Ry. & Timber Co., 185 Wash. 138 , 52 P.2d 1267 (1936). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
red
2 sentences1997The term "personal” is repeated throughout the course of the opinion, which also characterizes Roe as an example of a rule "of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 857 . 1997The term "personal" is repeated throughout the course of the opinion, which also characterizes Roe as an example of a rule "of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection." Casey, 505 U.S. at 857 , 112 S.Ct. at 2810 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Hambrick v. State
green
2 sentences2017The court cited with *74 approval an out-of-state case, Hambrick v. State, 174 Ga. App. 444 , 330 S.E.2d 383 (1985), as an example of the rule. 2017The court cited with *74 approval an out-of-state case, Hambrick v. State, 174 Ga. App. 444 , 330 S.E.2d 383 (1985), as an example of the rule. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Collins
green
1 sentence2017Collins, 110 Wn.2d at 261 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Thomas v. Knights of Maccabees of the World
neutral
2 sentences1995Thomas v. Knights of Maccabees, 85 Wash. 665 , 149 P. 7 (1915). 1995Thomas v. Knights of Maccabees, 85 Wash. 665 , 149 P. 7 (1915). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
green
1 sentence1992The use of these properties for what are now expressly prohibited purposes was always unlawful, and (subject to other constitutional limitations) it was open to the State at any point to make the implication of those background principles of nuisance and property law explicit." Lucas, 112 S.Ct. at 2900-01 . [2] The facts of Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 1 , 829 P.2d 765 (1992) and Robinson provide an example of this principle. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences1992The facts of Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 1 , 829 P.2d 765 (1992) and Robinson provide an example of this principle. 1992The facts of Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 1 , 829 P.2d 765 (1992) and Robinson provide an example of this principle. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.