defendant asserts defense in Washington

8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 1 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 (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Perezgreen washctapp · 1995 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See State v. Perez, 77 Wash.App. 372 , 891 P.2d 42 (1995); State v. Ladenburg, 67 Wash. App. 749 , 840 P.2d 228 (1992). 1999See State v. Perez, 77 Wn.	2	2
State v. Sundberggreen wash · 2016 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025App. 553, 572-73 , 278 P.3d 203 (2012). 14 No. 59335-1-II Unique or “peculiar” control arises when a defendant asserts a defense that involves a witness of which the State had no prior knowledge or the name of whom is “ ‘known to the defendant alone.’ ” Id. at 572 (quoting Blair, 117 Wn.2d at 490 ); See also State v. Sundberg, 185 Wn.2d 147, 148-50 , 370 P.3d 1 (2016) (missing witness instruction appropriate when defendant asserted affirmative defense of unwitting possession of controlled substances and testified a man not previously mentioned to the State lent him overalls that contained the 2025App. 553, 572-73 , 278 P.3d 203 (2012). 14 No. 59335-1-II Unique or “peculiar” control arises when a defendant asserts a defense that involves a witness of which the State had no prior knowledge or the name of whom is “ ‘known to the defendant alone.’ ” Id. at 572 (quoting Blair, 117 Wn.2d at 490 ); See also State v. Sundberg, 185 Wn.2d 147, 148-50 , 370 P.3d 1 (2016) (missing witness instruction appropriate when defendant asserted affirmative defense of unwitting possession of controlled substances and testified a man not previously mentioned to the State lent him overalls that contained the	1	1
State v. Blairgreen wash · 1991 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025App. 553, 572-73 , 278 P.3d 203 (2012). 14 No. 59335-1-II Unique or “peculiar” control arises when a defendant asserts a defense that involves a witness of which the State had no prior knowledge or the name of whom is “ ‘known to the defendant alone.’ ” Id. at 572 (quoting Blair, 117 Wn.2d at 490 ); See also State v. Sundberg, 185 Wn.2d 147, 148-50 , 370 P.3d 1 (2016) (missing witness instruction appropriate when defendant asserted affirmative defense of unwitting possession of controlled substances and testified a man not previously mentioned to the State lent him overalls that contained the 2025App. 553, 572-73 , 278 P.3d 203 (2012). 14 No. 59335-1-II Unique or “peculiar” control arises when a defendant asserts a defense that involves a witness of which the State had no prior knowledge or the name of whom is “ ‘known to the defendant alone.’ ” Id. at 572 (quoting Blair, 117 Wn.2d at 490 ); See also State v. Sundberg, 185 Wn.2d 147, 148-50 , 370 P.3d 1 (2016) (missing witness instruction appropriate when defendant asserted affirmative defense of unwitting possession of controlled substances and testified a man not previously mentioned to the State lent him overalls that contained the	1	1
Novenson v. Spokane Culvert & Fabricating Co.green wash · 1979 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See, e.g.,Novenson, 91 Wn.2d at 552 .	1	1

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 (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Robinson v. City of Seattle green wash · 1992 2 sentences 2004Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66 . 2004Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .	2	2004–2004
State v. Reed neutral washctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2025App. 553, 572-73 , 278 P.3d 203 (2012). 14 No. 59335-1-II Unique or “peculiar” control arises when a defendant asserts a defense that involves a witness of which the State had no prior knowledge or the name of whom is “ ‘known to the defendant alone.’ ” Id. at 572 (quoting Blair, 117 Wn.2d at 490 ); See also State v. Sundberg, 185 Wn.2d 147, 148-50 , 370 P.3d 1 (2016) (missing witness instruction appropriate when defendant asserted affirmative defense of unwitting possession of controlled substances and testified a man not previously mentioned to the State lent him overalls that contained the 2025App. 553, 572-73 , 278 P.3d 203 (2012). 14 No. 59335-1-II Unique or “peculiar” control arises when a defendant asserts a defense that involves a witness of which the State had no prior knowledge or the name of whom is “ ‘known to the defendant alone.’ ” Id. at 572 (quoting Blair, 117 Wn.2d at 490 ); See also State v. Sundberg, 185 Wn.2d 147, 148-50 , 370 P.3d 1 (2016) (missing witness instruction appropriate when defendant asserted affirmative defense of unwitting possession of controlled substances and testified a man not previously mentioned to the State lent him overalls that contained the	1	2025–2025
State v. Thorgerson green wash · 2011 2 sentences 2014State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 756 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012) ( citing State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 442 , 258 P. 3d 43 ( 2011)). 2014State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 756 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012) ( citing State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 442 , 258 P. 3d 43 ( 2011)).	1	2014–2014
State v. KARLOW green wash · 2012 1 sentence 2014State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 756 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012) ( citing State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 442 , 258 P. 3d 43 ( 2011)).	1	2014–2014
State v. Emery green wash · 2012 1 sentence 2014State v. Emery, 174 Wn.2d 741, 756 , 278 P. 3d 653 ( 2012) ( citing State v. Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d 438, 442 , 258 P. 3d 43 ( 2011)).	1	2014–2014
French v. Gabriel green wash · 1991 2 sentences 2013Generally, a defendant is not dilatory in asserting a defense if the defendant asserts the defense in the answer.66 Further, delay in filing an answer does not necessarily waive a defense.67 In French v. Gabriel, the supreme court concluded that the defendant was not dilatory in asserting the defense of insufficient service of process even though he asserted the defense in an untimely answer.68 In reaching this conclusion, the court highlighted the following: (1) the plaintiff did not ask the defendant to file an answer sooner than he did; (2) when the defendant failed to file a timely answer, 2013Generally, a defendant is not dilatory in asserting a defense if the defendant asserts the defense in the answer.66 Further, delay in filing an answer does not necessarily waive a defense.67 In French v. Gabriel, the supreme court concluded that the defendant was not dilatory in asserting the defense of insufficient service of process even though he asserted the defense in an untimely answer.68 In reaching this conclusion, the court highlighted the following: (1) the plaintiff did not ask the defendant to file an answer sooner than he did; (2) when the defendant failed to file a timely answer,	1	2013–2013
King v. Snohomish County green wash · 2002 1 sentence 2013Generally, a defendant is not dilatory in asserting a defense if the defendant asserts the defense in the answer.66 Further, delay in filing an answer does not necessarily waive a defense.67 In French v. Gabriel, the supreme court concluded that the defendant was not dilatory in asserting the defense of insufficient service of process even though he asserted the defense in an untimely answer.68 In reaching this conclusion, the court highlighted the following: (1) the plaintiff did not ask the defendant to file an answer sooner than he did; (2) when the defendant failed to file a timely answer,	1	2013–2013
Gerean v. Martin-Joven green washctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2013Generally, a defendant is not dilatory in asserting a defense if the defendant asserts the defense in the answer.66 Further, delay in filing an answer does not necessarily waive a defense.67 In French v. Gabriel, the supreme court concluded that the defendant was not dilatory in asserting the defense of insufficient service of process even though he asserted the defense in an untimely answer.68 In reaching this conclusion, the court highlighted the following: (1) the plaintiff did not ask the defendant to file an answer sooner than he did; (2) when the defendant failed to file a timely answer,	1	2013–2013
Gerean v. Martin-Joven green washctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2013App. 963, 973 , 33 P.3d 427 (2001). 68 116 Wn.2d 584, 593-94 , 806 P.2d 1234 (1991). 69 Id. at 593 . 19 No. 69515-1-1/20 The supreme court explained that "'[w]hile not to be condoned, mere delay in filing an answer does not constitute a waiver of an insufficient service defense.'"70 Here, McKissic asserted the defense in an untimely answer.	1	2013–2013
State v. Ladenburg green washctapp · 1992 2 sentences 1999See State v. Perez, 77 Wash.App. 372 , 891 P.2d 42 (1995); State v. Ladenburg, 67 Wash. App. 749 , 840 P.2d 228 (1992). 1999See State v. Perez, 77 Wash.App. 372 , 891 P.2d 42 (1995); State v. Ladenburg, 67 Wash. App. 749 , 840 P.2d 228 (1992).	1	1999–1999

Where else courts name it

TX 41 (1928–2018) MA 38 (1988–2026) IL 36 (1932–2026) CT 26 (1966–2025) NY 19 (1980–2025) CA 19 (1957–2024) OH 16 (2000–2025) IN 15 (1984–2020) MI 12 (1977–2021) NC 12 (1925–2022) NH 10 (1995–2019) LA 10 (1981–2018) GA 9 (1984–2002) WA 8 (1999–2025) IA 8 (1970–2016) FL 8 (1980–2013) TN 8 (1997–2020) VT 8 (1990–2023) AL 7 (2002–2011) CO 7 (1972–2020) MT 6 (1936–2025) MN 6 (1997–2018) ID 6 (1982–2012) NM 5 (1972–2023) MS 5 (2002–2015) MO 5 (1964–2002) NJ 5 (1951–2023) PA 4 (2016–2025) VA 3 (2006–2016) WI 3 (1978–2025) RI 3 (1981–2009) DC 3 (1975–2016) OR 3 (2003–2012) KS 3 (2000–2026) KY 2 (2000–2015) WV 2 (1982–1984) NE 2 (1953–1988) MD 2 (2012–2017) ND 2 (1982–1985)

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