refusal challenge (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

refusal challenge in Washington

8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1917–2000 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

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 (11)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Brown green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to tales-men only.” RCW 4.44.210. 127 Wn.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). 80 Wn.

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

22000–2000
State v. Sharp neutral
washctapp · 1996
2 sentences

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

22000–2000
State v. Brown green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to tales-men only.” RCW 4.44.210. 127 Wn.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). 80 Wn.

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

22000–2000
State v. Briscoeray green
washctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

12000–2000
State v. Sunde neutral
washctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

2000The panel being filled and passed for cause, after said challenge shall have been made by either party, a refusal to challenge by either party in the said order of alternation, shall not defeat the adverse party of his full number of challenges, but such refusal on the part of the plaintiff to exercise his challenge in proper turn, shall conclude him as to the jurors once accepted by him, and if his right be not exhausted, his further challenges shall be confined, in his proper turn, to talesmen only." RCW 4.44.210. [5] 127 Wash.2d 749, 757-59 , 903 P.2d 459 (1995). [6] 80 Wash.App. 457, 460-6

12000–2000
State v. Mark green
wash · 1980
2 sentences

1986As the court in State v. Mark, 94 Wn.2d 520 , 618 P.2d 73 (1980) explained at pages 525-26, State v. Allen, supra, stands for the proposition that it is not reversible error to instruct the jury that character evidence may in and of itself create a doubt as to the guilt of the defendant; but it does not go so far as to say that the refusal of such an instruction is reversible error, where the jury is otherwise instructed that it should consider the evidence as bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

1986As the court in State v. Mark, 94 Wn.2d 520 , 618 P.2d 73 (1980) explained at pages 525-26, State v. Allen, supra, stands for the proposition that it is not reversible error to instruct the jury that character evidence may in and of itself create a doubt as to the guilt of the defendant; but it does not go so far as to say that the refusal of such an instruction is reversible error, where the jury is otherwise instructed that it should consider the evidence as bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

11986–1986
State v. Latham green
washctapp · 1981
1 sentence

1983In State v. Latham, 30 Wn.

11983–1983
State v. Marten neutral
wash · 1968
2 sentences

1978That this rule may be applied in criminal cases to support the refusal of an instruction on self-defense or manslaughter is recognized by State v. Marten, 73 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 441 P.2d 520 (1968) and State v. Barnhart, supra at 940.

1978That this rule may be applied in criminal cases to support the refusal of an instruction on self-defense or manslaughter is recognized by State v. Marten, 73 Wn.2d 898, 902 , 441 P.2d 520 (1968) and State v. Barnhart, supra at 940.

11978–1978
Cooper v. Pay-N-Save Drugs, Inc. green
wash · 1962
2 sentences

1965Cooper v. Pay-N-Save Drugs, Inc., 59 Wn.2d 829 , 371 P.2d 43 .

1965Cooper v. Pay-N-Save Drugs, Inc., 59 Wn.2d 829 , 371 P.2d 43 .

11965–1965
Jones v. Wiese neutral
wash · 1915
2 sentences

1917Appellants contended that respondent was guilty of contributory negligence, and relied chiefly upon the decision of this court in Jones v. Wiese, 88 Wash. 356 , 153 Pac. 330 .

1917Appellants contended that respondent was guilty of contributory negligence, and relied chiefly upon the decision of this court in Jones v. Wiese, 88 Wash. 356 , 153 Pac. 330 .

11917–1917
Stewart v. Stewart green
ca1 · 1887
2 sentences

1917Most of these cases are based upon the wording of divorce statutes; as in Maine, where in Stewart v. Stewart, 78 Me. 548 , 7 Atl. 473 , 57 Am.

1917Most of these cases are based upon the wording of divorce statutes; as in Maine, where in Stewart v. Stewart, 78 Me. 548 , 7 Atl. 473 , 57 Am.

11917–1917

Where else courts name it

TX 342 (1874–2026) CA 118 (1867–2024) IL 104 (1885–2026) MO 64 (1886–2014) IN 55 (1875–2014) WI 52 (1932–2025) MA 51 (1870–2025) NY 49 (1871–2025) MS 48 (1889–2024) PA 34 (1849–2026) VA 25 (1912–2026) AL 24 (1895–2007) WV 24 (1896–2021) OH 23 (1889–2024) NM 22 (1910–2023) GA 19 (1882–2024) CO 15 (1922–2026) FL 14 (1913–2014) NE 13 (1893–2024) IA 12 (1897–2021) KS 12 (1892–1996) AR 11 (1914–2020) ID 11 (1921–2020) AZ 10 (1966–2021) OK 10 (1911–2008) MD 9 (1963–2010) NV 9 (1887–2013) MN 9 (1902–2015) NJ 8 (1964–2020) WY 8 (1952–2020) WA 8 (1917–2000) ME 8 (1926–2019) KY 7 (1916–2024) NC 7 (1947–2019) OR 7 (1885–2015) ND 6 (1960–2007) UT 6 (1968–2026) SD 5 (1925–2014) VT 5 (1884–1990) LA 4 (1969–2006) MT 4 (1935–2016) NH 4 (1974–1997) HI 4 (1945–1999) DC 4 (1989–2025) CT 4 (1975–2018) MI 3 (1927–1978) TN 3 (1935–2013) SC 3 (1988–2024) RI 3 (1970–1987) AK 2 (1978–1981)

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