8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thomas Morgan v. B.J. Bunnell, Warden Attorney General of Californiagreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir. 1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where two experts concluded the defendant was sane and a third expert could not reach a conclusion); Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497, 1525 (9th Cir. 1990) (even where there is a strong basis for a mental defense, an attorney may forgo that def 2004Personal Restraint Pet., App. 537). [267] Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 ("In general, an attorney is entitled to rely on the opinions of mental health experts in deciding whether to pursue an insanity or diminished capacity defense."). [268] See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where | 2 | 2 |
cluster 708222green2 sentences2004See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir. 1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where two experts concluded the defendant was sane and a third expert could not reach a conclusion); Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497, 1525 (9th Cir. 1990) (even where there is a strong basis for a mental defense, an attorney may forgo that def 2004Personal Restraint Pet., App. 537). [267] Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 ("In general, an attorney is entitled to rely on the opinions of mental health experts in deciding whether to pursue an insanity or diminished capacity defense."). [268] See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2004Personal Restraint Pet., App. 537). [267] Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 ("In general, an attorney is entitled to rely on the opinions of mental health experts in deciding whether to pursue an insanity or diminished capacity defense."). [268] See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where | 1 | 1 |
Robert Alton Harris v. Daniel Vasquez, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentingreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir. 1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where two experts concluded the defendant was sane and a third expert could not reach a conclusion); Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497, 1525 (9th Cir. 1990) (even where there is a strong basis for a mental defense, an attorney may forgo that def 2004Harris, 949 F.2d at 1525 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 1 | 1 |
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5877, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8231, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9244 Manuel Pina Babbitt v. Arthur Calderon, Wardengreen1 sentence2004Personal Restraint Pet., App. 537). [267] Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 ("In general, an attorney is entitled to rely on the opinions of mental health experts in deciding whether to pursue an insanity or diminished capacity defense."). [268] See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2004Personal Restraint Pet., App. 537). [267] Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 ("In general, an attorney is entitled to rely on the opinions of mental health experts in deciding whether to pursue an insanity or diminished capacity defense."). [268] See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where 2004Personal Restraint Pet., App. 537). [267] Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 ("In general, an attorney is entitled to rely on the opinions of mental health experts in deciding whether to pursue an insanity or diminished capacity defense."). [268] See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Park Hill Corp. v. Sharp
green
2 sentences2010Notably, no mental state language appears in that subsection. ¶ 15 After the adoption of the UFTA, Division Three examined the mental state requirement again in Park Hill Corp. v. Sharp, 60 Wash.App. 283 , 803 P.2d 326 (1991). 2010Notably, no mental state language appears in that subsection. ¶ 15 After the adoption of the UFTA, Division Three examined the mental state requirement again in Park Hill Corp. v. Sharp, 60 Wash.App. 283 , 803 P.2d 326 (1991). | 3 | 2009–2010 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2004Harris, 949 F.2d at 1525 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2004Personal Restraint Pet., App. 537). [267] Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 ("In general, an attorney is entitled to rely on the opinions of mental health experts in deciding whether to pursue an insanity or diminished capacity defense."). [268] See, e.g., Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1038 (where nearly 20 hours of mental health evaluation by defense experts revealed no basis for a mental defense, defense counsel was justified in the decision not to conduct further investigation into the matter); Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994) (attorney was justified in not pursuing a mental defense where | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Clark
green
1 sentence2022However, “[t]he label that trial counsel attaches to its proffered evidence cannot change the actual purpose for which the evidence is offered.” Clark, 187 Wn.2d at 651 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Soto
green
1 sentence2021App. 839, 841 , 727 P.2d 999 (1986) (noting that “proof of second degree burglary is necessarily proof of first degree criminal trespass” because burglary has a higher mental state requirement); State v. Mounsey, 31 3 No. 99147-2 Madsen, J., concurring Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Mounsey
green
1 sentence2021App. 511, 517-18, 643 P.2d 892 (1982) (holding that first degree criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of first degree burglary). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Pawlyk
green
2 sentences2017Cf State v. Pawlyk, 115 Wn.2d 457 , 800 P.2d 338 (1990). 2017Cf State v. Pawlyk, 115 Wn.2d 457 , 800 P.2d 338 (1990). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.