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.
337 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2026 73 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. Postgreen2 sentences2024“Without evidence of actual or potential bias, an appearance of fairness claim cannot succeed and is without merit.” State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 619 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992). 2024“Without evidence of actual or potential bias, an appearance of fairness claim cannot succeed and is without merit.” State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 619 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992). | 7 | 50 |
Washington Medical Disciplinary Board v. Johnstongreen2 sentences2017App. at 329 . ¶60 “Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, proceedings before a quasi-judicial tribunal are valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” Johnston, 99 Wn.2d at 478 . 2016“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, proceedings before a quasi-judicial tribunal are valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” Johnston, 99 Wn.2d at 478 . | 5 | 13 |
State v. Dominguezgreen2 sentences2026“Due process, the appearance of fairness doctrine and Canon [2.11] of the Code of Judicial Conduct . . . require a judge to disqualify himself if he is biased against a party or his impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn. App. 325, 328 , 914 P.2d 141 (1996). 2026“Due process, the appearance of fairness doctrine and Canon [2.11] of the Code of Judicial Conduct . . . require a judge to disqualify himself if he is biased against a party or his impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn. App. 325, 328 , 914 P.2d 141 (1996). | 4 | 29 |
Swift v. Island Countygreen2 sentences2004In addition, to the extent the challenge suggests an appearance of fairness violation, Swift v. Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348, 361 , 552 P.2d 175 (1976), Friends’ argument comes too late. 2004In addition, to the extent the challenge suggests an appearance of fairness violation, Swift v. Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348, 361 , 552 P.2d 175 (1976), Friends’ argument comes too late. | 4 | 14 |
Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. City of Tacomagreen2 sentences2008Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 420 , 526 P.2d 897 (1974). 2008Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 420 , 526 P.2d 897 (1974). | 4 | 11 |
Harris v. Hornbakergreen2 sentences1999See Harris v. Hornbaker, 98 Wash.2d 650, 659-60 , 658 P.2d 1219 (1983) (the Legislature's determination *981 of where to place a road was a distinctly legislative decision and therefore the appearance of fairness doctrine did not apply). 1999See Harris v. Hornbaker, 98 Wash.2d 650, 659-60 , 658 P.2d 1219 (1983) (the Legislature's determination *981 of where to place a road was a distinctly legislative decision and therefore the appearance of fairness doctrine did not apply). | 4 | 9 |
Tatham v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2025A proceeding satisfies the appearance of fairness doctrine “only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested person would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” Tatham v. Rogers, 170 Wn. App. 76, 96 , 283 P.3d 583 (2012). 2024The appearance of fairness doctrine seeks to prevent any issues of “a biased or potentially interested judge.” Tatham v. Rogers, 170 Wn. | 3 | 31 |
Sherman v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See State v. Williams, 15 Wn. App. 2d 841 , 850, 480 P.3d 1145 (2020) (holding that trial judge’s violation of the CJC did not violate the appearance of fairness doctrine when there was no showing of impact on the case itself). -7- Fourth, and lastly, “[t]he CJC recognizes that where a trial judge’s decisions are tainted by even a mere suspicion of partiality, the effect on the public’s confidence in our judicial system can be debilitating.” Sherman, 128 Wn.2d at 205 . 2026See State v. Williams, 15 Wn. App. 2d 841 , 850, 480 P.3d 1145 (2020) (holding that trial judge’s violation of the CJC did not violate the appearance of fairness doctrine when there was no showing of impact on the case itself). -7- Fourth, and last, “[t]he CJC recognizes that where a trial judge’s decisions are tainted by even a mere suspicion of partiality, the effect on the public’s confidence in our judicial system can be debilitating.” Sherman, 128 Wn.2d at 205 . | 3 | 9 |
Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences1999NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). [2] See Zehring v. City of Beltevue, 103 Wash.2d 588, 591 , 694 P.2d 638 (1985) (the appearance of fairness doctrine has never been applied to an administrative action except where a hearing was required by statute); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle. 90 Wash.2d 59, 67-68 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (same). [3] The "yard light" is virtually identical to a typical streetlight except for its location. 1999NOTES [1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). [2] See Zehring v. City of Beltevue, 103 Wash.2d 588, 591 , 694 P.2d 638 (1985) (the appearance of fairness doctrine has never been applied to an administrative action except where a hearing was required by statute); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle. 90 Wash.2d 59, 67-68 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (same). [3] The "yard light" is virtually identical to a typical streetlight except for its location. | 3 | 9 |
State v. Finchgreen2 sentences2026The court stated that the appearance of fairness doctrine only applies to “judicial and quasi-judicial decisionmakers.” Id. 9 at 808. 2014See State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 809-10 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999); Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 140-43 . 18 In re Petersen, No. 88513-3 necessary for an appearance of fairness violation and so her charge against Commissioner Valente must fail. | 3 | 8 |
| State v. Brennerred | 3 | 4 |
State v. Gamblegreen2 sentences2026Moreover, we hold that Mitchell’s counsel preserved the issue by moving for a mistrial after contending the court had repeatedly interrupted him and been “very aggressive.” 4 Under “the appearance of fairness doctrine,” a judicial proceeding is valid “if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010). 2026Moreover, we hold that Mitchell’s counsel preserved the issue by moving for a mistrial after contending the court had repeatedly interrupted him and been “very aggressive.” 4 Under “the appearance of fairness doctrine,” a judicial proceeding is valid “if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010). | 2 | 37 |
State v. Solis-Diazgreen2 sentences2026Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, “a judicial proceeding is valid if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Solis-Diaz, 187 Wn.2d 535, 540 , 387 P.3d 703 (2017). 2026Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, “a judicial proceeding is valid if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Solis-Diaz, 187 Wn.2d 535, 540 , 387 P.3d 703 (2017). | 2 | 33 |
State v. Ladenburgred2 sentences2021The appearance of fairness doctrine provides that a “judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Ladenburg, 67 Wn. 2019We disagree. “‘Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.’” State v. Bilal, 77 Wn. App. 720, 722 , 893 P.2d 674 (1995) (quoting State v. Ladenberg, 67 Wn. App. 749 , 754-55, 840 P.3d 228 (1992)). “‘Due process, the appearance of fairness, and Canon 3(D)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct require disqualification 13 Wilks specifically argues that the State failed to establish that Wilks provided BS with alcohol during the charging p | 2 | 15 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2024In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 , 75 S. Ct. 623 , 99 L. Ed. 942 (1955) (quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 , 75 S. Ct. 11 , 99 L. Ed. 11 (1954); Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 , 47 S. Ct. 437 , 71 L. Ed. 749 (1927)). 7 However, “[e]vidence of a judge’s actual or potential bias is required before the appearance of fairness doctrine will be applied.” State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn. App. 325 , 328- 29, 914 P.2d 141 (1996) (citing State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596 , 618-19 & n.9, 826 P.2d 172 (1992); State v. Carter, 77 Wn. App. 8, 11-12 , 888 P.2d 1230 (1995); State v. Bilal, 77 2024In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 , 75 S. Ct. 623 , 99 L. Ed. 942 (1955) (quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 , 75 S. Ct. 11 , 99 L. Ed. 11 (1954); Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 , 47 S. Ct. 437 , 71 L. Ed. 749 (1927)). 7 However, “[e]vidence of a judge’s actual or potential bias is required before the appearance of fairness doctrine will be applied.” State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn. App. 325 , 328- 29, 914 P.2d 141 (1996) (citing State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596 , 618-19 & n.9, 826 P.2d 172 (1992); State v. Carter, 77 Wn. App. 8, 11-12 , 888 P.2d 1230 (1995); State v. Bilal, 77 | 2 | 11 |
City of Hoquiam v. Public Employment Relations Commissiongreen2 sentences2006Employment Relations Comm’n, 97 Wn.2d 481, 488 , 646 P.2d 129 (1982). ¶101 Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, it is not necessary to show that a decision-maker’s bias actually affected the outcome, only that it could have. 2006Employment Relations Comm’n, 97 Wn.2d 481, 488 , 646 P.2d 129 (1982). ¶101 Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, it is not necessary to show that a decision-maker’s bias actually affected the outcome, only that it could have. | 2 | 8 |
Wolfkill Feed & Fertilizer Corp. v. Martingreen2 sentences2009Wolfkill, 103 Wash.App. at 841 , 14 P.3d 877 (citing Kay Corp. v. Anderson, 72 Wash.2d 879, 885 , 436 P.2d 459 (1967)). ¶ 30 The appearance of fairness doctrine seeks to insure public confidence by preventing a biased or potentially interested judge from ruling on a case. 2009Wolfkill, 103 Wash.App. at 841 , 14 P.3d 877 (citing Kay Corp. v. Anderson, 72 Wash.2d 879, 885 , 436 P.2d 459 (1967)). ¶ 30 The appearance of fairness doctrine seeks to insure public confidence by preventing a biased or potentially interested judge from ruling on a case. | 2 | 7 |
Fleming v. City of Tacomagreen2 sentences2021The Coalition relies on Fleming v. City of Tacoma, 81 Wn.2d 292 , 502 P.2d 327 (1972); Chicago, Milwaukee, 87 Wn.2d at 802 ; and In re Al-Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 2019), to argue that a decision-maker who has prospective employment with a stakeholder violates the appearance of fairness doctrine by failing to disclose the potential conflict. 2021The Coalition relies on Fleming v. City of Tacoma, 81 Wn.2d 292 , 502 P.2d 327 (1972); Chicago, Milwaukee, 87 Wn.2d at 802 ; and In re Al-Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 2019), to argue that a decision-maker who has prospective employment with a stakeholder violates the appearance of fairness doctrine by failing to disclose the potential conflict. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Toliasgreen2 sentences2026State v. Tolias, 135 Wn.2d 133, 140 , 954 P.2d 907 (1998); see also State 23 1. 2026State v. Tolias, 135 Wn.2d 133, 140 , 954 P.2d 907 (1998); see also State 23 1. | 2 | 4 |
In re the Guardianship of Cobbgreen2 sentences2025In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wn. App. 393, 404, 292 P.3d 772 (2012) (citing RAP 2.5(a)(3)). 2018"An appearance of fairness claim is not 'constitutional' in nature under RAP 2.5(a)(3) and, thus, may not be raised for the first time on appeal." In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wn. | 2 | 4 |
| State of Washington v. Rudy E. Williamsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Barry v. Johnsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| City of Redmond v. Mooregreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bilalgreen2 sentences2025“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested person would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 Wn. App. 887, 903 , 201 P.3d 1056 (2009) (citing State v. Bilal, 77 Wn. App. 720, 722 , 893 P.2d 674 (1995)). 2025“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested person would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 Wn. App. 887, 903 , 201 P.3d 1056 (2009) (citing State v. Bilal, 77 Wn. App. 720, 722 , 893 P.2d 674 (1995)). | 1 | 30 |
Smith v. Skagit Countygreen2 sentences2021The appearance of fairness doctrine “aspires to the maintenance of public confidence in the just, disinterested decisions of public agencies.” Fleck v. King County, 16 Wn. App. 668, 673 , 558 P.2d 254 (1977). “[W]henever the law requires a hearing of any sort as a condition precedent to the power to proceed, 7 it means a fair hearing, a hearing not only fair in substance, but fair in appearance as well.” Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715, 739 , 453 P.2d 832 (1969). 2021The appearance of fairness doctrine “aspires to the maintenance of public confidence in the just, disinterested decisions of public agencies.” Fleck v. King County, 16 Wn. App. 668, 673 , 558 P.2d 254 (1977). “[W]henever the law requires a hearing of any sort as a condition precedent to the power to proceed, 7 it means a fair hearing, a hearing not only fair in substance, but fair in appearance as well.” Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715, 739 , 453 P.2d 832 (1969). | 1 | 21 |
State v. Morgensengreen2 sentences2025Morgensen, 148 Wn. App. at 91 . 2014App. 81, 90-91 , 197 P.3d 715 (2008). ¶29 In any event, to prevail on an appearance of fairness claim, Revival must present evidence of actual or potential bias. | 1 | 13 |
State v. Chamberlingreen2 sentences2025But “[e]vidence of a judge’s actual or potential bias must be shown before an appearance of fairness claim will succeed.” State v. Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d 30, 37, 162 P.3d 389 (2007). 2025But “[e]vidence of a judge’s actual or potential bias must be shown before an appearance of fairness claim will succeed.” State v. Chamberlin, 161 Wn.2d 30, 37, 162 P.3d 389 (2007). | 1 | 12 |
State v. Madrygreen2 sentences2017After reviewing the record, we disagree. ¶20 “Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010). “ ‘The law goes farther than requiring an impartial judge; it also requires that the judge appear to be impartial.’ ” Gamble, 168 Wn.2d at 187 (quoting State v. Madry, 8 Wn. 1997App. 61, 68-69 , 504 P.2d 1156 (1972), the Washington case to which May cites, was reformulated in State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 618-19 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992), which now requires evidence of a judge’s actual or potential bias to assert a claim under the appearance of fairness doctrine. | 1 | 9 |
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kinggreen2 sentences2022The case she relies on, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888, 899 , 232 P.3d 1095 (2010), states, “[q]uestions as to whether undisputed facts violate due process or the appearance of fairness doctrine are legal and reviewed de novo.” Here, however, Bell is appealing the denial of her motion for a new trial judge, where Judge Schwartz made a decision regarding whether he was required to recuse himself. 2022The case she relies on, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888, 899 , 232 P.3d 1095 (2010), states, “[q]uestions as to whether undisputed facts violate due process or the appearance of fairness doctrine are legal and reviewed de novo.” Here, however, Bell is appealing the denial of her motion for a new trial judge, where Judge Schwartz made a decision regarding whether he was required to recuse himself. | 1 | 7 |
| State v. Leongreen | 1 | 4 |
| Zehring v. City of Bellevuegreen | 1 | 3 |
| Club Envy of Spokane, LLC v. Ridpath Tower Condominium Ass'ngreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Belgardegreen | 1 | 2 |
| City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Boardgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Meredith
green
2 sentences2026We generally review claims of judicial bias under the appearance of fairness doctrine, which states that “a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested person would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 Wn. App. 887, 903 , 201 P.3d 1056 (2009). 2026We generally review claims of judicial bias under the appearance of fairness doctrine, which states that “a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested person would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 Wn. App. 887, 903 , 201 P.3d 1056 (2009). | 18 | 2011–2026 |
State of Washington v. Daniel Blizzard
green
2 sentences2022State v. Blizzard, 195 Wn. 2021State v. Blizzard, 195 Wn. | 9 | 2017–2022 |
State v. Carlson
green
2 sentences2025Id. “[A] defendant who has reason to believe that a judge should be disqualified must act promptly to request recusal and ‘cannot wait until he has received an adverse ruling and then move for disqualification.’” Id. (quoting State v. Carlson, 66 Wn. App. 909, 917 , 833 P.2d 463 (1992)). 2015CJC Canon 3.1(C) states that judges shall not “participate in activities that would undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.” The appearance of fairness doctrine is “directed at the evil of a biased or potentially interested judge or quasi-judicial decisionmaker.” State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 618-19 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992). 5 No. 47366-6-II must act promptly to request recusal and “cannot wait until [s]he has received an adverse ruling and then move for disqualification.” State v. Carlson, 66 Wn. | 6 | 2010–2025 |
Carrick v. Locke
green
2 sentences2014See State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 809-10 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999); Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 140-43 . 18 In re Petersen, No. 88513-3 necessary for an appearance of fairness violation and so her charge against Commissioner Valente must fail. 2014See State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 809-10 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999); Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 140-43 . 18 In re Petersen, No. 88513-3 necessary for an appearance of fairness violation and so her charge against Commissioner Valente must fail. | 5 | 1999–2021 |
In Re Swenson
green
2 sentences2025Id. “[A] defendant who has reason to believe that a judge should be disqualified must act promptly to request recusal and ‘cannot wait until he has received an adverse ruling and then move for disqualification.’” Id. (quoting State v. Carlson, 66 Wn. App. 909, 917 , 833 P.2d 463 (1992)). 2015App. 812, 818 , 244 P. 3d 959 ( 2010). 31 No. 45709 -1 - II We generally review claims ofjudicial bias under the appearance of fairness doctrine, which states that "` a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing."' State v. Bilal, 77 Wn. | 4 | 2015–2025 |
| Raynes v. City of Leavenworth green | 4 | 1995–2021 |
| State v. Gentry green | 4 | 2015–2021 |
| Buell v. City of Bremerton green | 4 | 1982–2006 |
| Chrobuck v. Snohomish County green | 4 | 1981–1983 |
| In Re Murchison. green | 3 | 1996–2024 |
| Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, & Pacific Railroad v. Washington State Human Rights Commission green | 3 | 1992–2021 |
| Hayes v. Hayes green | 3 | 2019–2021 |
| State v. Dugan neutral | 3 | 2002–2021 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Haynes green | 3 | 2003–2020 |
| Shantanu Neravetla, M.d. v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of Health neutral | 3 | 2017–2019 |
| State v. Romano green | 3 | 2005–2018 |
| Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. green | 3 | 2016–2016 |
| Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass'n v. King County Council green | 3 | 1980–1981 |
| Magula v. Department of Labor & Industries neutral | 2 | 2006–2026 |
| City of Lake Forest Park v. Shorelines Hearings Board green | 2 | 2021–2026 |
| In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell green | 2 | 2026–2026 |
| Olympic Healthcare Services II, LLC v. Department of Social & Health Services green | 2 | 2024–2025 |
| In re Pers. Restraint of Monschke green | 2 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Ra green | 2 | 2020–2021 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Davis green | 2 | 2016–2020 |
| State v. C.B. green | 2 | 2017–2019 |
| Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc. green | 2 | 2012–2019 |
| West v. STATE, ASS'N OF COUNTY OFFICIALS green | 2 | 2016–2018 |
| Batson v. Kentucky green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Lundy green | 2 | 2016–2018 |
| Kok v. Tacoma School District No. 10 green | 2 | 2016–2018 |
| Withrow v. Larkin green | 2 | 1983–2017 |
| In Re Marriage of Wallace green | 2 | 2014–2016 |
| GMAC v. Everett Chevrolet, Inc. green | 2 | 2015–2016 |
| State v. Worl green | 2 | 2014–2015 |
| State v. Dagenais neutral | 2 | 1998–2014 |
| Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Baldwin green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Jones v. Halvorson-Berg green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Dhaliwal green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
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.