first sentence instruction (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

first sentence instruction in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2016 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Pappas v. Hollowaygreen
wash · 1990 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996The second sentence refers to what is often termed "core" or "opinion" work product, i.e., work product containing those "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation." CR 26(b)(4); see Pappas, 114 Wash.2d at 210-11 , 787 P.2d 30 ; Lewis H.

1996The second sentence refers to what is often termed "core" or "opinion" work product, i.e., work product containing those "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation." CR 26(b)(4); see Pappas, 114 Wash.2d at 210-11 , 787 P.2d 30 ; Lewis H.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Gerdts green
washctapp · 2007
2 sentences

2007"Generally, when there is no objection on the record, we will not consider an alleged instructional error unless the appellant first demonstrates that the error is a `manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'" State v. Gerdts, 136 Wash.App. 720, 726 , 150 P.3d 627 (2007) (quoting RAP 2.5(a)(3)).

2007“Generally, when there is no objection on the record, we will not consider an alleged instructional error unless the appellant first demonstrates that the error is a ‘manifest error affecting a constitutional right.’ ” State v. Gerdts, 136 Wn.

22007–2007
State v. Walden green
wash · 1997
1 sentence

2016The first sentence of the instruction clearly states that it is a defense to the charges of attempted murder and/or first degree assault that first degree assault and/or attempted murder was "justifiable as defined in this instruction." Id.

12016–2016
State v. Gerdts green
washctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2007"Generally, when there is no objection on the record, we will not consider an alleged instructional error unless the appellant first demonstrates that the error is a `manifest error affecting a constitutional right.'" State v. Gerdts, 136 Wash.App. 720, 726 , 150 P.3d 627 (2007) (quoting RAP 2.5(a)(3)).

12007–2007
Brown v. Dahl green
washctapp · 1985
1 sentence

1986Harris , at 447; Brown v. Dahl, 41 Wn.

11986–1986
State v. Grisby green
wash · 1982
2 sentences

1985The first sentence of this instruction is based on State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493, 501 , 647 P.2d 6 (1982), cert. denied sub nom.

1985The first sentence of this instruction is based on State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493, 501 , 647 P.2d 6 (1982), cert. denied sub nom.

11985–1985
Laswell v. Weinberger green
scotus · 1983
1 sentence

1985Frazier v. Washington, 459 U.S. 1211 , 75 L.

11985–1985
Kell v. United States green
scotus · 1983
1 sentence

1985Frazier v. Washington, 459 U.S. 1211 , 75 L.

11985–1985
State v. Thomas green
wash · 1963
2 sentences

1976Unlike State v. Thomas, 63 Wn.2d 59 , 385 P.2d 532 (1963), where the propriety of the “lawless acts” language in the first sentence of this instruction was also raised, no evidence was introduced in the present case indicating the defendant had committed illegal or unlawful acts which might have occasioned the assault.

1976Unlike State v. Thomas, 63 Wn.2d 59 , 385 P.2d 532 (1963), where the propriety of the “lawless acts” language in the first sentence of this instruction was also raised, no evidence was introduced in the present case indicating the defendant had committed illegal or unlawful acts which might have occasioned the assault.

11976–1976
State v. Dana green
wash · 1968
2 sentences

1970However, State v. Dana, 73 Wn.2d 533 , 439 P.2d 403 (1968) convinces us that the presence of the first sentence of instruction No. 11 is fatal error.

1970However, State v. Dana, 73 Wn.2d 533 , 439 P.2d 403 (1968) convinces us that the presence of the first sentence of instruction No. 11 is fatal error.

11970–1970

Where else courts name it

CA 40 (1917–2025) IL 23 (1902–2026) IN 10 (1924–2019) TX 10 (1963–2010) WA 9 (1970–2016) MS 8 (1954–2013) FL 8 (1936–2025) MI 7 (1967–2017) MA 6 (1975–2024) KS 6 (1926–2008) NY 6 (1911–2025) IA 5 (1885–2022) MO 5 (1953–1987) OR 5 (1933–2020) MN 5 (1977–2014) NE 5 (1917–2006) VA 4 (1907–2025) GA 4 (1981–2025) WI 4 (1912–2008) PA 3 (1997–2021) OH 3 (2007–2017) MT 3 (1998–2014) WV 3 (1892–2012) NH 2 (1967–1994) ND 2 (1968–2015) AL 2 (1982–1994) AZ 2 (1983–1985) NC 2 (1958–2001) ID 2 (1929–1998) DE 2 (2020–2021) NM 2 (1979–1996)

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