Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Emerygreen2 sentences2015We examine three factors —the Hopson factors —when determining whether an irregularity warrants a mistrial: " `( 1) its seriousness; ( 2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and ( 3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it.' " Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 765 ( quoting State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P. 2d 1014 ( 1989)). 2015We examine three factors —the Hopson factors —when determining whether an irregularity warrants a mistrial: " `( 1) its seriousness; ( 2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and ( 3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it.' " Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 765 ( quoting State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P. 2d 1014 ( 1989)). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Perez-Valdezgreen2 sentences2013State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 928 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). ¶38 We also are cognizant that application of the Hopson factors must occur in the context of deference to the trial court, who “ ‘having seen and heard the proceedings, is in a better position to evaluate and adjudge than can we from a cold, printed record.’ ” Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d at 819 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 52 , 134 P.3d 221 (2006)). 2013State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 928 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). ¶38 We also are cognizant that application of the Hopson factors must occur in the context of deference to the trial court, who “ ‘having seen and heard the proceedings, is in a better position to evaluate and adjudge than can we from a cold, printed record.’ ” Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d at 819 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 52 , 134 P.3d 221 (2006)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2023The Hopson Factors “We examine three factors—the Hopson factors—when determining whether an irregularity warrants a mistrial: ‘(1) its seriousness; (2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it.’” State v. Garcia, 177 Wn. 2023The Hopson Factors “We examine three factors—the Hopson factors—when determining whether an irregularity warrants a mistrial: ‘(1) its seriousness; (2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it.’” State v. Garcia, 177 Wn. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Greiffgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Greiff. 141 Wn.2d 910, 921 , 10 P.3d 390 (2000) ("In determining whether the effect of an irregular occurrence at trial affected the trial's outcome, this court examines: (1) the seriousness of the irregularity; (2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it." (Citing State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P.2d 1014 (1989).). 2014See State v. Greiff. 141 Wn.2d 910, 921 , 10 P.3d 390 (2000) ("In determining whether the effect of an irregular occurrence at trial affected the trial's outcome, this court examines: (1) the seriousness of the irregularity; (2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and (3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it." (Citing State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P.2d 1014 (1989).). | 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. Hopson
green
2 sentences2015We examine three factors —the Hopson factors —when determining whether an irregularity warrants a mistrial: " `( 1) its seriousness; ( 2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and ( 3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it.' " Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 765 ( quoting State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P. 2d 1014 ( 1989)). 2015We examine three factors —the Hopson factors —when determining whether an irregularity warrants a mistrial: " `( 1) its seriousness; ( 2) whether it involved cumulative evidence; and ( 3) whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard it.' " Emery, 174 Wn.2d at 765 ( quoting State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 284 , 778 P. 2d 1014 ( 1989)). | 5 | 2013–2015 |
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences2013Our Supreme Court has noted that “ ‘[a] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.’ ” State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 345 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 , 93 S. Ct. 1565 , 36 L. 2013Our Supreme Court has noted that “ ‘[a] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.’ ” State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 345 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 , 93 S. Ct. 1565 , 36 L. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. McKenzie
green
2 sentences2013State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 928 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). ¶38 We also are cognizant that application of the Hopson factors must occur in the context of deference to the trial court, who “ ‘having seen and heard the proceedings, is in a better position to evaluate and adjudge than can we from a cold, printed record.’ ” Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d at 819 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 52 , 134 P.3d 221 (2006)). 2013State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 928 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). ¶38 We also are cognizant that application of the Hopson factors must occur in the context of deference to the trial court, who “ ‘having seen and heard the proceedings, is in a better position to evaluate and adjudge than can we from a cold, printed record.’ ” Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d at 819 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 52 , 134 P.3d 221 (2006)). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Davis
yellow
2 sentences2013Our Supreme Court has noted that “ ‘[a] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.’ ” State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 345 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 , 93 S. Ct. 1565 , 36 L. 2013Our Supreme Court has noted that “ ‘[a] defendant is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.’ ” State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287, 345 , 290 P.3d 43 (2012) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231 , 93 S. Ct. 1565 , 36 L. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2013Rodriguez, 146 Wn.2d at 269-70 . 2013Rodriguez, 146 Wn.2d at 269-70 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Kirkman
green
2 sentences2013State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 928 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). ¶38 We also are cognizant that application of the Hopson factors must occur in the context of deference to the trial court, who “ ‘having seen and heard the proceedings, is in a better position to evaluate and adjudge than can we from a cold, printed record.’ ” Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d at 819 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 52 , 134 P.3d 221 (2006)). 2013State v. Kirkman, 159 Wn.2d 918, 928 , 155 P.3d 125 (2007). ¶38 We also are cognizant that application of the Hopson factors must occur in the context of deference to the trial court, who “ ‘having seen and heard the proceedings, is in a better position to evaluate and adjudge than can we from a cold, printed record.’ ” Perez-Valdez, 172 Wn.2d at 819 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 157 Wn.2d 44, 52 , 134 P.3d 221 (2006)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.