8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Covell v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences2017REV. 335,352 (2003) ("Properly understood, regulatory fees are charges to cover the cost of the state's use of its regulatory powers which can be allocated to those who are either voluntarily or involuntarily receiving special attention from government regulators." (emphasis omitted)). 2 Covell v. City ofSeattle, 127 Wn.2d 874, 879 , 905 P.2d 324 (1995). 3 In Watson's motion for summary judgment, he distinguished actual regulations from de facto regulations and attempted to reserve arguments on whether "the Ordinance will result in de facto regulation of the sale of firearms or ammunition." Cl 2017REV. 335,352 (2003) ("Properly understood, regulatory fees are charges to cover the cost of the state's use of its regulatory powers which can be allocated to those who are either voluntarily or involuntarily receiving special attention from government regulators." (emphasis omitted)). 2 Covell v. City ofSeattle, 127 Wn.2d 874, 879 , 905 P.2d 324 (1995). 3 In Watson's motion for summary judgment, he distinguished actual regulations from de facto regulations and attempted to reserve arguments on whether "the Ordinance will result in de facto regulation of the sale of firearms or ammunition." Cl | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Boone
green
2 sentences2004Moreover, under Boone and Romano , the proper remedy for Watson’s claim is disclosure of the previously secret information and remand for resentencing. 103 Wn.2d at 235 ; 34 Wn. 2004Moreover, under Boone and Romano , the proper remedy for Watson's claim is disclosure of the previously secret information and remand for resentencing. 103 Wash.2d at 235 , 691 P.2d 964 ; 34 Wash.App. at 569-70 , 662 P.2d 406 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Romano
green
2 sentences2004Moreover, under Boone and Romano , the proper remedy for Watson’s claim is disclosure of the previously secret information and remand for resentencing. 103 Wn.2d at 235 ; 34 Wn. 2004Moreover, under Boone and Romano , the proper remedy for Watson's claim is disclosure of the previously secret information and remand for resentencing. 103 Wash.2d at 235 , 691 P.2d 964 ; 34 Wash.App. at 569-70 , 662 P.2d 406 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Allen
green
1 sentence2025Watson’s claim implicates a constitutional right, Allen, 101 Wn.2d at 358 , but he does not succeed in establishing an actual error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Tabernacle v. Pentecostal Church of God
green
2 sentences2010Using the Watson rule, we must decide “whether or not the local church is subject to some higher governing authority.” Southside Tabernacle, 32 Wn. 2010Using the Watson rule, we must decide “whether or not the local church is subject to some higher governing authority.” Southside Tabernacle, 32 Wn. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Lind Building Corp. v. Pacific Bellevue Developments
green
2 sentences1994Corp. v. Pacific Bellevue Devs., 55 Wn. 1994Corp. v. Pacific Bellevue Devs., 55 Wn. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Ford
green
2 sentences1988RCW 46.61.506(3)." State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827, 829 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988). 1988RCW 46.61.506(3)." State v. Ford, 110 Wn.2d 827, 829 , 755 P.2d 806 (1988). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.