8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Redden v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Redden v. State, 418 A.2d 996,997 (Del. 1980)), dismiss a defendant's appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine if (1)the defendant absconds without justification and (2)the delay causes prejudice to the justice system or to the State. 2017Redden v. State, 418 A.2d 996,997 (Del. 1980)), dismiss a defendant's appeal pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine if (1)the defendant absconds without justification and (2)the delay causes prejudice to the justice system or to the State. | 2 | 2 |
City of Seattle v. Kleingreen2 sentences2019See City of Seattle v. Klein, 161 Wn.2d 554, 559 , 166 P.3d 1149 (2007) (doctrine applying presumption that defendant in criminal appeal who files an appeal and flees the jurisdiction forfeits right to pursue appeal) 3 No. 78246-1 -114 corpus for an abuse of discretion. 2009Id. at 559, 166 P.3d 1149 . | 1 | 2 |
City of Seattle v. Kleingreen1 sentence2019See City of Seattle v. Klein, 161 Wn.2d 554, 559 , 166 P.3d 1149 (2007) (doctrine applying presumption that defendant in criminal appeal who files an appeal and flees the jurisdiction forfeits right to pursue appeal) 3 No. 78246-1 -114 corpus for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frenchgreen2 sentences2007Id. at 602 n.2. 9 The court then held that “the fugitive disentitlement doctrine generally does not apply to a defendant who absconds after conviction but before sentencing.” Id. at 602. ¶20 The City argues that the trial court’s reliance on French is misplaced because nothing in its language purports to overrule any of the cases applying the FDD to a defendant who has already been sentenced and has filed a notice of appeal before fleeing the court’s jurisdiction. 2007Id. at 602 n.2. 9 The court then held that “the fugitive disentitlement doctrine generally does not apply to a defendant who absconds after conviction but before sentencing.” Id. at 602. ¶20 The City argues that the trial court’s reliance on French is misplaced because nothing in its language purports to overrule any of the cases applying the FDD to a defendant who has already been sentenced and has filed a notice of appeal before fleeing the court’s jurisdiction. | 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. Handy
green
2 sentences2006Washington courts first recognized the doctrine in State v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469 , 67 P. 1094 (1902). 2006Washington courts first recognized the doctrine in State v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469 , 67 P. 1094 (1902). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Sweet
green
2 sentences2007No findings of "extremely dilatory" conduct were entered by the court in the instant case. [8] Citing Sweet, 90 Wash.2d at 286 , 581 P.2d 579 . [9] "French appears to be arguing the fugitive disentitlement doctrine itself is unconstitutional, regardless of whether it is applied to a defendant who flees the jurisdiction before or after instigating an appeal. 2007No findings of "extremely dilatory" conduct were entered by the court in the instant case. [8] Citing Sweet, 90 Wash.2d at 286 , 581 P.2d 579 . [9] "French appears to be arguing the fugitive disentitlement doctrine itself is unconstitutional, regardless of whether it is applied to a defendant who flees the jurisdiction before or after instigating an appeal. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. French
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 602 n. 2, 141 P.3d 54 . [9] The court then held that "the fugitive disentitlement doctrine generally does not apply to a defendant who absconds after conviction but before sentencing." Id. at 602, 141 P.3d 54 . ¶ 20 The City argues that the trial court's reliance on French is misplaced because nothing in its language purports to overrule any of the cases applying the FDD to a defendant who has already been sentenced and has filed a notice of appeal before fleeing the court's jurisdiction. 2007Id. at 602 n. 2, 141 P.3d 54 . [9] The court then held that "the fugitive disentitlement doctrine generally does not apply to a defendant who absconds after conviction but before sentencing." Id. at 602, 141 P.3d 54 . ¶ 20 The City argues that the trial court's reliance on French is misplaced because nothing in its language purports to overrule any of the cases applying the FDD to a defendant who has already been sentenced and has filed a notice of appeal before fleeing the court's jurisdiction. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.