relevancy test in Washington

9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2016 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)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Saltarelligreen wash · 1982 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1986–1989 2 sentences 1986State v. Saltarelli, 98 Wn.2d 358 , 655 P.2d 697 (1982) set out the test to be applied in ER 404 (b) situations, emphasizing that ER 404(b) must be read together with the relevancy rule of ER 402 and the probative value balancing rule of ER 403. 1986State v. Saltarelli, 98 Wn.2d 358 , 655 P.2d 697 (1982) set out the test to be applied in ER 404 (b) situations, emphasizing that ER 404(b) must be read together with the relevancy rule of ER 402 and the probative value balancing rule of ER 403.	1	2

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 (9)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Hudlow green wash · 1983 2 sentences 2011Thus, “[f]actual similarities between prior consensual sex acts and the questioned sex acts claimed by the defendant to be consensual would cause the evidence to meet the minimal relevancy test of ER 401.” Hudlow, 99 Wn.2d at 11 . 2006“Factual similarities between prior consensual sex acts and the questioned sex acts claimed by the defendant to be consensual would cause the evidence to meet the minimal relevancy test of ER 401.” Id. at 11 .	3	2006–2011
Cook v. King County green washctapp · 1973 2 sentences 1980A relevancy standard for making the determination of whether to conduct an in camera hearing has two bases: (1) the determination of whether evidence is privileged is a judicial function, Cook v. King County, 9 Wn. 1980A relevancy standard for making the determination of whether to conduct an in camera hearing has two bases: (1) the determination of whether evidence is privileged is a judicial function, Cook v. King County, 9 Wn.	2	1980–1980
Pappas v. Holloway green wash · 1990 1 sentence 2016Pappas, 114 Wn.2d at 212-13 . ¶49 The superior court did not conduct the proper test under CR 26(b)(4) to find substantial need for the discovery of plaintiffs’ work product, nor did it require a finding that the product was central to Philadelphia’s defense; rather, it applied a relevancy standard to find protection was impliedly waived.	1	2016–2016
State v. Cauthron green wash · 1993 2 sentences 1994App. 598, 607 , 863 P.2d 1303 (1993). [37] State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 886 , 846 P.2d 402 (1993) (recognizing that some jurisdictions employ the more liberal relevancy test, but reaffirming Washington's commitment to the Frye test). [38] State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 440 , 853 P.2d 135 (Ct.App.), cert. granted, 115 N.M. 145 (1993). [39] Williams, 252 N.J. 1994State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 886 , 846 P.2d 402 (1993) (recognizing that some jurisdictions employ the more liberal relevancy test, but reaffirming Washington’s commitment to the Frye test).	1	1994–1994
People v. Barney green calctapp · 1992 2 sentences 1994Super. at 382 . [40] People v. Barney, 8 Cal. App. 4th 798, 819 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 731 (1992). [41] The dissent correctly indicates that although PCR DNA testing is generally accepted in the scientific community for research and medical diagnosis, it has not yet gained full acceptance in the forensic setting because problems of differential amplification, contaminated samples, and mixed samples have not yet been adequately addressed. 1994Super. at 382 . [40] People v. Barney, 8 Cal. App. 4th 798, 819 , 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 731 (1992). [41] The dissent correctly indicates that although PCR DNA testing is generally accepted in the scientific community for research and medical diagnosis, it has not yet gained full acceptance in the forensic setting because problems of differential amplification, contaminated samples, and mixed samples have not yet been adequately addressed.	1	1994–1994
State v. Anderson green nmctapp · 1993 2 sentences 1994App. 598, 607 , 863 P.2d 1303 (1993). [37] State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 886 , 846 P.2d 402 (1993) (recognizing that some jurisdictions employ the more liberal relevancy test, but reaffirming Washington's commitment to the Frye test). [38] State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 440 , 853 P.2d 135 (Ct.App.), cert. granted, 115 N.M. 145 (1993). [39] Williams, 252 N.J. 1994App. 598, 607 , 863 P.2d 1303 (1993). [37] State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 886 , 846 P.2d 402 (1993) (recognizing that some jurisdictions employ the more liberal relevancy test, but reaffirming Washington's commitment to the Frye test). [38] State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 440 , 853 P.2d 135 (Ct.App.), cert. granted, 115 N.M. 145 (1993). [39] Williams, 252 N.J.	1	1994–1994
State v. Lyons green orctapp · 1993 1 sentence 1994App. 598, 607 , 863 P.2d 1303 (1993). [37] State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 886 , 846 P.2d 402 (1993) (recognizing that some jurisdictions employ the more liberal relevancy test, but reaffirming Washington's commitment to the Frye test). [38] State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 440 , 853 P.2d 135 (Ct.App.), cert. granted, 115 N.M. 145 (1993). [39] Williams, 252 N.J.	1	1994–1994
State v. Williams green njsuperctappdiv · 1991 1 sentence 1994App. 598, 607 , 863 P.2d 1303 (1993). [37] State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879, 886 , 846 P.2d 402 (1993) (recognizing that some jurisdictions employ the more liberal relevancy test, but reaffirming Washington's commitment to the Frye test). [38] State v. Anderson, 115 N.M. 433, 440 , 853 P.2d 135 (Ct.App.), cert. granted, 115 N.M. 145 (1993). [39] Williams, 252 N.J.	1	1994–1994
State v. Potter green washctapp · 1980 2 sentences 1980App. 624 , 611 P.2d 1282 (1980), we stated that a trial court should apply a relevancy standard in exercising its discretion as to whether to hold an in camera hearing. 1980App. 624 , 611 P.2d 1282 (1980), we stated that a trial court should apply a relevancy standard in exercising its discretion as to whether to hold an in camera hearing.	1	1980–1980

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.010 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.020 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.44.050 (3)

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

TX 91 (1986–2024) NJ 36 (1977–2025) WI 30 (1984–2025) FL 27 (1947–2020) CA 27 (1956–2023) IN 24 (1890–2019) IL 23 (1959–2026) WV 21 (1992–2024) OH 16 (1992–2023) PA 15 (1987–2019) MA 14 (1985–2023) NC 11 (1992–2026) AL 11 (2003–2026) MI 10 (1993–2020) WA 9 (1980–2016) NH 9 (1994–2015) CO 9 (1983–2025) MS 8 (1987–2016) MD 8 (1983–2025) HI 8 (1995–2021) AZ 7 (1992–2016) VA 7 (1874–2023) IA 7 (1976–2025) KS 6 (1966–2018) NY 6 (1899–2023) CT 6 (1993–2024) DC 6 (1977–2008) KY 5 (2011–2022) TN 5 (1985–2015) LA 5 (1986–2015) MN 5 (1986–2011) MO 5 (1903–2024) SD 4 (1969–2010) NM 4 (1980–2017) WY 4 (1990–2011) GA 4 (1987–2021) RI 4 (1982–2018) OK 3 (1990–1992) NV 3 (1999–2020) AR 3 (2002–2014) OR 3 (1998–2015) NE 2 (1992–2019) MT 2 (1992–2003) DE 2 (1988–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check