Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Sokolowgreen2 sentences2009Lee, 147 Wash.App. at 921-22 , 199 P.3d 445 (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)). [5] ¶ 26 The trial court's conclusion that the police observations confirming the informant's tip were "innocuous" was likewise unfounded. 2009Lee, 147 Wash.App. at 921-22 , 199 P.3d 445 (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)). [5] ¶ 26 The trial court's conclusion that the police observations confirming the informant's tip were "innocuous" was likewise unfounded. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2001App. [60,] 70[, 802 P.2d 803 (1990)] (“This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence” and therefore remand for resentencing is required.) Parker, 132 Wn.2d at 189 (emphasis added). 2001See, e.g., State v. Brown, 60 Wash.App. [60,] 70, 802 P.2d 803 [ (1990) ] ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence" and therefore remand for resentencing is required.) Parker, 132 Wash.2d at 189 , 937 P.2d 575 (emphasis added). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Parkergreen2 sentences2001App. [60,] 70[, 802 P.2d 803 (1990)] (“This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence” and therefore remand for resentencing is required.) Parker, 132 Wn.2d at 189 (emphasis added). 2001See, e.g., State v. Brown, 60 Wash.App. [60,] 70, 802 P.2d 803 [ (1990) ] ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence" and therefore remand for resentencing is required.) Parker, 132 Wash.2d at 189 , 937 P.2d 575 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Parkergreen1 sentence2001See, e.g., State v. Brown, 60 Wash.App. [60,] 70, 802 P.2d 803 [ (1990) ] ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence" and therefore remand for resentencing is required.) Parker, 132 Wash.2d at 189 , 937 P.2d 575 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences2009Lee, 147 Wash.App. at 921-22 , 199 P.3d 445 (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)). [5] ¶ 26 The trial court's conclusion that the police observations confirming the informant's tip were "innocuous" was likewise unfounded. 2009Lee, 147 Wn. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1997App. at 70 ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence” and therefore remand for resentencing is required.); State v. Green, 46 Wn. 1997See, e.g., State v. Brown, 60 Wash.App. at 70 , 802 P.2d 803 ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence" and therefore remand for resentencing is required.); State v. Green, 46 Wash.App. 92, 101 , 730 P.2d 1350 (1986) ("Inasmuch as we find the trial court erred in determining the offender's score as legislatively defined and being unable to determine if the court imposed its excessive sentence of approximately twice the standard range depending upon its determination of the offender score, we rema | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Tili
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Lee
green
1 sentence2009Lee, 147 Wash.App. at 921-22 , 199 P.3d 445 (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)). [5] ¶ 26 The trial court's conclusion that the police observations confirming the informant's tip were "innocuous" was likewise unfounded. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Dunaway
green
2 sentences1997See, e.g., State v. Brown, 60 Wash.App. at 70 , 802 P.2d 803 ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence" and therefore remand for resentencing is required.); State v. Green, 46 Wash.App. 92, 101 , 730 P.2d 1350 (1986) ("Inasmuch as we find the trial court erred in determining the offender's score as legislatively defined and being unable to determine if the court imposed its excessive sentence of approximately twice the standard range depending upon its determination of the offender score, we rema 1997See, e.g., State v. Brown, 60 Wash.App. at 70 , 802 P.2d 803 ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence" and therefore remand for resentencing is required.); State v. Green, 46 Wash.App. 92, 101 , 730 P.2d 1350 (1986) ("Inasmuch as we find the trial court erred in determining the offender's score as legislatively defined and being unable to determine if the court imposed its excessive sentence of approximately twice the standard range depending upon its determination of the offender score, we rema | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Allingham v. City of Seattle
green
1 sentence1997See, e.g., State v. Brown, 60 Wash.App. at 70 , 802 P.2d 803 ("This court cannot say that the much lower standard range would not have an impact on the amount of time given for the exceptional sentence" and therefore remand for resentencing is required.); State v. Green, 46 Wash.App. 92, 101 , 730 P.2d 1350 (1986) ("Inasmuch as we find the trial court erred in determining the offender's score as legislatively defined and being unable to determine if the court imposed its excessive sentence of approximately twice the standard range depending upon its determination of the offender score, we rema | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
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.