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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Landman v. Roystergreen1 sentence1999So held the trial court, citing with approval Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621, 637 (E.D.Va.1971) (Prisoner's due process challenge *783 to administration of prison disciplinary system held subject to burden of proof by a preponderance.); cf. In re Personal Restraint of Powell, 117 Wash.2d 175, 184 , 814 P.2d 635 (1991) (In a collateral attack, petitioners "must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error has caused them actual prejudice."); and State v. S.H., 75 Wash.App. 1, 20 , 877 P.2d 205 (1994) (In a personal restraint petition to challenge whether a juvenile i | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Personal Restraint of Powell
green
2 sentences1999Va. 1971) (Prisoner’s due process challenge to administration of prison disciplinary system held subject to burden of proof by a preponderance.); cf. In re Personal Restraint of Powell, 117 Wn.2d 175, 184 , 814 P.2d 635 (1991) (In a collateral attack, petitioners “must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error has caused them actual prejudice.”); and State v. S.H., 75 Wn. 1999Va. 1971) (Prisoner’s due process challenge to administration of prison disciplinary system held subject to burden of proof by a preponderance.); cf. In re Personal Restraint of Powell, 117 Wn.2d 175, 184 , 814 P.2d 635 (1991) (In a collateral attack, petitioners “must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error has caused them actual prejudice.”); and State v. S.H., 75 Wn. | 3 | 1999–2025 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Cook
green
2 sentences2000Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 328 , 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (where the error does not give rise to a conclusive presumption of prejudice, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error resulted in actual and substantial prejudice); In re Personal Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 810-11 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991) (employing a two-prong test: (1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or 2000Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 328 , 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (where the error does not give rise to a conclusive presumption of prejudice, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error resulted in actual and substantial prejudice); In re Personal Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 810-11 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991) (employing a two-prong test: (1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or | 3 | 2000–2004 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Davis
green
2 sentences2011Davis, 152 Wash.2d at 672 , 101 P.3d 1 . 2010Davis, 152 Wn.2d at 672 . | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of St. Pierre
green
2 sentences2000Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 328 , 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (where the error does not give rise to a conclusive presumption of prejudice, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error resulted in actual and substantial prejudice); In re Personal Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 810-11 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991) (employing a two-prong test: (1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or 2000Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 328 , 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (where the error does not give rise to a conclusive presumption of prejudice, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error resulted in actual and substantial prejudice); In re Personal Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 810-11 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991) (employing a two-prong test: (1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Kjorsvik
green
2 sentences2000Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 328 , 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (where the error does not give rise to a conclusive presumption of prejudice, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error resulted in actual and substantial prejudice); In re Personal Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 810-11 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991) (employing a two-prong test: (1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or 2000Pierre, 118 Wn.2d 321, 328 , 823 P.2d 492 (1992) (where the error does not give rise to a conclusive presumption of prejudice, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error resulted in actual and substantial prejudice); In re Personal Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 810-11 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, 105-06 , 812 P.2d 86 (1991) (employing a two-prong test: (1) do the necessary facts appear in any form, or by fair construction can they be found, in the charging document; and, if so, (2) can the defendant show that he or | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. SH
green
2 sentences1999Va. 1971) (Prisoner’s due process challenge to administration of prison disciplinary system held subject to burden of proof by a preponderance.); cf. In re Personal Restraint of Powell, 117 Wn.2d 175, 184 , 814 P.2d 635 (1991) (In a collateral attack, petitioners “must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error has caused them actual prejudice.”); and State v. S.H., 75 Wn. 1999So held the trial court, citing with approval Landman v. Royster, 333 F.Supp. 621, 637 (E.D.Va.1971) (Prisoner's due process challenge *783 to administration of prison disciplinary system held subject to burden of proof by a preponderance.); cf. In re Personal Restraint of Powell, 117 Wash.2d 175, 184 , 814 P.2d 635 (1991) (In a collateral attack, petitioners "must show by a preponderance of the evidence that a constitutional error has caused them actual prejudice."); and State v. S.H., 75 Wash.App. 1, 20 , 877 P.2d 205 (1994) (In a personal restraint petition to challenge whether a juvenile i | 2 | 1999–1999 |
In Re Davis
green
1 sentence2011Davis, 152 Wash.2d at 672 , 101 P.3d 1 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Williams
green
2 sentences2004In re Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); In re Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353, 364 , 759 P.2d 436 (1988). 2004In re Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); In re Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353, 364 , 759 P.2d 436 (1988). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.