9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Paulino Izaguirre Rojas v. Robert Richardson, Kenneth McGee and M and R Cattle Company, a Partnershipgreen1 sentence2018A golden rule argument is barred in civil cases because it "encourages the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence." Id. (quoting Rojas v. Richardson, 703 F.2d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Delaware Olds, Inc. v. Dixongreen2 sentences1988Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wn.2d 128 , 750 P.2d 1257 (1988); Delaware Olds, Inc. v. Dixon, 367 A.2d 178, 179 (Del. 1976). 1988Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wn.2d 128 , 750 P.2d 1257 (1988); Delaware Olds, Inc. v. Dixon, 367 A.2d 178, 179 (Del. 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM.
green
2 sentences2018Adkins v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 110 Wn.2d 128, 139 , 750 P.2d 1257 (1988). 2014Adkins, 110 Wn.2d at 142 . | 6 | 1988–2018 |
Golden v. World Gospel Mission
green
2 sentences2017The court found that: "Under these facts Golden's challenge is, in all important respects, a will contest." Palmer, 146 Wn. 2017The court found that: "Under these facts Golden's challenge is, in all important respects, a will contest." Palmer, 146 Wn. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Borboa
green
1 sentence2018In State v. Borboa, the Washington State Supreme Court stated it was not convinced that the prohibition on golden rule arguments applies in the criminal context. 157 Wn.2d 108 , 124 n.5, 135 P.3d 469 (2006). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Borboa
green
1 sentence2018In State v. Borboa, the Washington State Supreme Court stated it was not convinced that the prohibition on golden rule arguments applies in the criminal context. 157 Wn.2d 108 , 124 n.5, 135 P.3d 469 (2006). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
AC Ex Rel. Cooper v. Bellingham School Dist.
green
1 sentence2015App. 511, 515 , 105 P.3d 400 (2004). 16 A.C, 125 Wn. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
A.C. v. Bellingham School District
neutral
2 sentences2015It disagrees with the trial court's analysis and 14 A.C, 125 Wn. 2015That's an issue for the juryto decide."[16] The A.C. court concluded that defense counsel's closing argument did not constitute an improper golden rule argument because the defendant did not ask members of the jury to put themselves in the defendant's position to decide ifjury members would want to be found guilty of negligence.17 Instead, counsel told the jury to determine what amount of money would properly compensate A.C. and what that money means to them.18 Here, the trial court in its order granting new trial distinguished A.C: Unlike the comments in A.C. . . ., [in this case] the focus w | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.