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 2 courts 2008–2026 3 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. . Huntleygreen2 sentences2026Again, as Rahimi held: Whether classified as an affray law or a distinct prohibition, the going armed laws prohibited “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, [to] terrify[ ] the good people of the land.” Such conduct disrupted the “public order” and “le[d] almost necessarily to actual violence.” Therefore, the law punished these acts with “forfeiture of the arms . . . and imprisonment.” 602 U.S. at 697 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting 4 BLACKSTONE, supra, at *149; State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 421-22 (1843)). 2026Again, as Rahimi held: Whether classified as an affray law or a distinct prohibition, the going armed laws prohibited “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, [to] terrify[ ] the good people of the land.” Such conduct disrupted the “public order” and “le[d] almost necessarily to actual violence.” Therefore, the law punished these acts with “forfeiture of the arms . . . and imprisonment.” 602 U.S. at 697 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting 4 BLACKSTONE, supra, at *149; State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 421-22 (1843)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Rahimigreen2 sentences2026Again, as Rahimi held: Whether classified as an affray law or a distinct prohibition, the going armed laws prohibited “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, [to] terrify[ ] the good people of the land.” Such conduct disrupted the “public order” and “le[d] almost necessarily to actual violence.” Therefore, the law punished these acts with “forfeiture of the arms . . . and imprisonment.” 602 U.S. at 697 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting 4 BLACKSTONE, supra, at *149; State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 421-22 (1843)). 2026Again, as Rahimi held: Whether classified as an affray law or a distinct prohibition, the going armed laws prohibited “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, [to] terrify[ ] the good people of the land.” Such conduct disrupted the “public order” and “le[d] almost necessarily to actual violence.” Therefore, the law punished these acts with “forfeiture of the arms . . . and imprisonment.” 602 U.S. at 697 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting 4 BLACKSTONE, supra, at *149; State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 421-22 (1843)). | 1 | 1 |
Victor D. Quilici, Robert Stengl, George L. Reichert, and Robert E. Metler v. Village of Morton Grovegreen1 sentence2008E.g., Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 , 14 S.Ct. 874 , 38 L.Ed. 812 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 , 6 S.Ct. 580 , 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270-71 (7th Cir.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
District of Columbia v. Hellergreen2 sentences2025See, Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27 (“[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”) In subsequent Supreme Court cases involving Second Amendment analysis, the Court reiterated its conclusions in Heller, including the constitutionality of prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. 2017The court in Heller made clear that rational basis review was not acceptable for a Second Amendment analysis. 554 U.S. at 628 n.27. | 1 | 4 |
McDonald v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2025See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 , 130 S. Ct. 3020 , 177 L. 2025See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 , 130 S. Ct. 3020 , 177 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Laurent
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 104 ; 18 U.S.C. § 922 (n). 6 The court found that the firearm ban applied to only a narrow class of persons, unlike the prohibition in Heller that extended to the public at large; that the provision did not prohibit possessing firearms but merely shipping or receiving them; and that the ban applied for only the time between indictment and either acquittal or conviction. 2013Id. at 104 ; 18 U.S.C. § 922 (n). 6 The court found that the firearm ban applied to only a narrow class of persons, unlike the prohibition in Heller that extended to the public at large; that the provision did not prohibit possessing firearms but merely shipping or receiving them; and that the ban applied for only the time between indictment and either acquittal or conviction. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Miller v. Texas
green
2 sentences2008E.g., Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 , 14 S. Ct. 874 , 38 L. 2008E.g., Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 , 14 S. Ct. 874 , 38 L. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Homan
red
2 sentences2025Chaney relies on State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 , 330 P.3d 182 (2004), for the proposition that in considering a sufficiency challenge after a bench trial, “this Court must utilize the trial court’s findings of fact as the basis for review, not 3 No. 86919-1-I/4 the entirety of the evidence presented at trial.”3 But as Chaney acknowledges in his reply brief, our Supreme Court recently abrogated Homan in State v. Roberts, ___ Wn.3d ___, 572 P.3d 1191 (2025), which the court decided after Chaney filed his opening brief. 2025Chaney relies on State v. Homan, 181 Wn.2d 102 , 330 P.3d 182 (2004), for the proposition that in considering a sufficiency challenge after a bench trial, “this Court must utilize the trial court’s findings of fact as the basis for review, not 3 No. 86919-1-I/4 the entirety of the evidence presented at trial.”3 But as Chaney acknowledges in his reply brief, our Supreme Court recently abrogated Homan in State v. Roberts, ___ Wn.3d ___, 572 P.3d 1191 (2025), which the court decided after Chaney filed his opening brief. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Presser v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2008E.g., Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 , 14 S.Ct. 874 , 38 L.Ed. 812 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 , 6 S.Ct. 580 , 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270-71 (7th Cir.1982). 2008E.g., Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 , 14 S.Ct. 874 , 38 L.Ed. 812 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 , 6 S.Ct. 580 , 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270-71 (7th Cir.1982). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.