inaccurate warning (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

inaccurate warning in Washington

8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2019 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Gonzales v. Department of Licensinggreen
wash · 1989 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–2011
2 sentences

2011"The warnings must permit someone of normal intelligence to understand the consequences of his or her actions." Jury, 114 Wash.App. at 731 , 60 P.3d 615 . ¶ 12 "The result of a breath test must be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, and (2) the driver demonstrates that [s]he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning." Dep't of Licensing v. Grewal, 108 Wash.App. 815, 822 , 33 P.3d 94 (2001) (footnote omitted); see also Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 902 , 774 P.2d 1187 .

2011"The warnings must permit someone of normal intelligence to understand the consequences of his or her actions." Jury, 114 Wash.App. at 731 , 60 P.3d 615 . ¶ 12 "The result of a breath test must be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, and (2) the driver demonstrates that [s]he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning." Dep't of Licensing v. Grewal, 108 Wash.App. 815, 822 , 33 P.3d 94 (2001) (footnote omitted); see also Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 902 , 774 P.2d 1187 .

36
State v. Storhoffgreen
wash · 1997 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–2001
2 sentences

2001See also State v. Trevino, 127 Wash.2d 735, 747 , 903 P.2d 447 (1995). [17] Gonzales v. Department of Licensing, 112 Wash.2d 890, 898 , 774 P.2d 1187 (1989). [18] State v. Storhoff, 133 Wash.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997); State v. Bartels, 112 Wash.2d 882, 889-90 , 774 P.2d 1183 (1989); Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 . [19] See Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 (where the arresting officer gave all the required implied consent warnings, but they contained additional language which, under certain circumstances was inaccurate, the driver must demonstrate that he w

1998The result of the breath test will be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, id. at 898 , and (2) the driver demonstrates that he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning, State v. Storhoff, 133 Wn.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997) (overruling City of Spokane v. Holmberg, 50 Wn.

12
State v. Storhoffgreen
wash · 1997 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–2001
2 sentences

2001See also State v. Trevino, 127 Wash.2d 735, 747 , 903 P.2d 447 (1995). [17] Gonzales v. Department of Licensing, 112 Wash.2d 890, 898 , 774 P.2d 1187 (1989). [18] State v. Storhoff, 133 Wash.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997); State v. Bartels, 112 Wash.2d 882, 889-90 , 774 P.2d 1183 (1989); Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 . [19] See Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 (where the arresting officer gave all the required implied consent warnings, but they contained additional language which, under certain circumstances was inaccurate, the driver must demonstrate that he w

1998The result of the breath test will be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, id. at 898 , and (2) the driver demonstrates that he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning, State v. Storhoff, 133 Wn.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997) (overruling City of Spokane v. Holmberg, 50 Wn.

12
State v. Trevinogreen
wash · 1995 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See also State v. Trevino, 127 Wash.2d 735, 747 , 903 P.2d 447 (1995). [17] Gonzales v. Department of Licensing, 112 Wash.2d 890, 898 , 774 P.2d 1187 (1989). [18] State v. Storhoff, 133 Wash.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997); State v. Bartels, 112 Wash.2d 882, 889-90 , 774 P.2d 1183 (1989); Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 . [19] See Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 (where the arresting officer gave all the required implied consent warnings, but they contained additional language which, under certain circumstances was inaccurate, the driver must demonstrate that he w

2001See also State v. Trevino, 127 Wash.2d 735, 747 , 903 P.2d 447 (1995). [17] Gonzales v. Department of Licensing, 112 Wash.2d 890, 898 , 774 P.2d 1187 (1989). [18] State v. Storhoff, 133 Wash.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997); State v. Bartels, 112 Wash.2d 882, 889-90 , 774 P.2d 1183 (1989); Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 . [19] See Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 (where the arresting officer gave all the required implied consent warnings, but they contained additional language which, under certain circumstances was inaccurate, the driver must demonstrate that he w

11

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
Grewal v. Department of Licensing green
washctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2011App. at 731 . ¶12 “The result of a breath test must be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportu nity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, and (2) the driver demonstrates that [s]he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning.” Grewal v. Dep’t of Licensing, 108 Wn.

2011"The warnings must permit someone of normal intelligence to understand the consequences of his or her actions." Jury, 114 Wash.App. at 731 , 60 P.3d 615 . ¶ 12 "The result of a breath test must be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, and (2) the driver demonstrates that [s]he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning." Dep't of Licensing v. Grewal, 108 Wash.App. 815, 822 , 33 P.3d 94 (2001) (footnote omitted); see also Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 902 , 774 P.2d 1187 .

22011–2011
STATE DEPT. OF LICENSING v. Grewal green
washctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2011App. 815 , 822, 33 P.3d 94 (2001) (footnote omitted); see also Gonzales, 112 Wn.2d at 902 .

2011"The warnings must permit someone of normal intelligence to understand the consequences of his or her actions." Jury, 114 Wash.App. at 731 , 60 P.3d 615 . ¶ 12 "The result of a breath test must be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, and (2) the driver demonstrates that [s]he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning." Dep't of Licensing v. Grewal, 108 Wash.App. 815, 822 , 33 P.3d 94 (2001) (footnote omitted); see also Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 902 , 774 P.2d 1187 .

22011–2011
State v. Bartels green
wash · 1989
2 sentences

2001See also State v. Trevino, 127 Wash.2d 735, 747 , 903 P.2d 447 (1995). [17] Gonzales v. Department of Licensing, 112 Wash.2d 890, 898 , 774 P.2d 1187 (1989). [18] State v. Storhoff, 133 Wash.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997); State v. Bartels, 112 Wash.2d 882, 889-90 , 774 P.2d 1183 (1989); Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 . [19] See Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 (where the arresting officer gave all the required implied consent warnings, but they contained additional language which, under certain circumstances was inaccurate, the driver must demonstrate that he w

2001See also State v. Trevino, 127 Wash.2d 735, 747 , 903 P.2d 447 (1995). [17] Gonzales v. Department of Licensing, 112 Wash.2d 890, 898 , 774 P.2d 1187 (1989). [18] State v. Storhoff, 133 Wash.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997); State v. Bartels, 112 Wash.2d 882, 889-90 , 774 P.2d 1183 (1989); Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 . [19] See Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 901 , 774 P.2d 1187 (where the arresting officer gave all the required implied consent warnings, but they contained additional language which, under certain circumstances was inaccurate, the driver must demonstrate that he w

21998–2001
Mathews v. Eldridge green
scotus · 1976
2 sentences

2019Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L.

2019Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L.

12019–2019
Jury v. State, Dept. of Licensing green
washctapp · 2002
1 sentence

2011"The warnings must permit someone of normal intelligence to understand the consequences of his or her actions." Jury, 114 Wash.App. at 731 , 60 P.3d 615 . ¶ 12 "The result of a breath test must be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, and (2) the driver demonstrates that [s]he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning." Dep't of Licensing v. Grewal, 108 Wash.App. 815, 822 , 33 P.3d 94 (2001) (footnote omitted); see also Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 902 , 774 P.2d 1187 .

12011–2011
Jury v. Department of Licensing neutral
washctapp · 2002
1 sentence

2011"The warnings must permit someone of normal intelligence to understand the consequences of his or her actions." Jury, 114 Wash.App. at 731 , 60 P.3d 615 . ¶ 12 "The result of a breath test must be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, and (2) the driver demonstrates that [s]he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning." Dep't of Licensing v. Grewal, 108 Wash.App. 815, 822 , 33 P.3d 94 (2001) (footnote omitted); see also Gonzales, 112 Wash.2d at 902 , 774 P.2d 1187 .

12011–2011
City of Spokane v. Holmberg green
washctapp · 1987
2 sentences

1998The result of the breath test will be suppressed if (1) the inaccurate warning deprives the driver of the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision, id. at 898 , and (2) the driver demonstrates that he was actually prejudiced by the inaccurate warning, State v. Storhoff, 133 Wn.2d 523, 531-32 , 946 P.2d 783 (1997) (overruling City of Spokane v. Holmberg, 50 Wn.

1998App. 317, 323-24 , 745 P.2d 49 (1987) (holding that implied consent statute requires strict compliance and no showing of prejudice)); State v. Bartels, 112 Wn.2d 882, 889-90 , 774 P.2d 1183 (1989); Gonzales, 112 Wn.2d at 899 .

11998–1998
Cooper v. Department of Licensing green
washctapp · 1991
1 sentence

1993Cooper v. Department of Licensing, 61 Wn.

11993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.308 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.502 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.25.090 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.506 (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

FL 20 (1989–2025) TN 13 (2000–2020) IL 13 (1889–2024) OH 10 (1992–2018) WA 8 (1993–2019) NY 7 (1977–2022) PA 5 (1913–2022) NM 4 (1942–2019) IN 4 (1884–2018) OK 4 (1913–1991) GA 3 (1946–2025) TX 2 (2014–2015) HI 2 (2017–2022) DC 2 (2025–2026) MO 2 (1994–2018) IA 2 (2017–2017) NJ 2 (2022–2022) AK 2 (1988–2011) CA 2 (1958–2006) KY 2 (2021–2023)

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