after hearing (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

after hearing in Washington

8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2025 2 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
In Re the Marriage of James green
washctapp · 1995
2 sentences

2021James, 79 Wn.

2020In the context of dissolution and parenting orders, contempt is governed by RCW 26.09.160, which provides, “a court shall find a party in contempt when ‘the court finds after hearing that the parent, in bad faith, has not complied with the order establishing residential provisions for the child.’” In re Marriage of James, 79 Wn.

42017–2021
In re the Marriage of Rideout green
wash · 2003
2 sentences

2025Rideout, 150 Wn.2d at 359 .

2019In Rideout, a father initiated a contempt proceeding against his former wife, alleging that she demonstrated a pattern of interference with the residential time with their children to which he was entitled under the parenting plan. 150 Wn.2d at 340 .

32017–2025
Lynch v. Ninemire Packing Co. green
wash · 1911
1 sentence

1929In the case of Lynch v. Ninemire Packing Co., 63 *32 Wash. 423, 115 Pac. 838 , L.

11929–1929

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.160 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.140 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010 (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

PA 96 (1905–2025) CA 44 (1912–2026) TX 42 (1925–2018) AL 41 (1849–2025) NY 27 (1926–2024) IL 27 (1869–2024) OK 19 (1904–2010) OH 18 (1996–2026) KS 18 (1930–2026) LA 16 (1935–2022) GA 16 (1924–2024) FL 14 (1919–2018) MO 12 (1911–2024) AK 12 (1979–2021) MI 12 (1912–2024) IN 11 (1916–2016) CT 9 (1903–2026) ND 9 (1996–2018) WA 8 (1929–2025) KY 8 (1908–2024) MD 8 (1936–2015) NJ 8 (1893–2021) NM 7 (1970–2024) DC 7 (1970–1996) OR 6 (1950–2018) VT 6 (1942–2023) NE 6 (1956–2016) NC 5 (1915–2025) UT 5 (1938–2023) MA 5 (1930–1990) VA 4 (1959–2010) RI 4 (1919–2009) CO 4 (1943–2025) AZ 3 (1971–2023) ME 3 (1976–2019) WI 3 (1994–2020) MN 3 (2002–2006) MS 3 (1975–1995) TN 3 (1944–2010) IA 2 (1953–2003) MT 2 (1909–2001) WV 2 (1918–2003)

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