abatement rule in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2017 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 (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Devingreen wash · 2006 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2011 2 sentences 2011Id. at 172. ¶9 The Washington Supreme Court again addressed the abatement rule in State v. Webb, 167 Wn.2d 470, 472 , 219 P.3d 695 (2009). 2009Once the defendant dies, this purpose cannot be carried out and the abatement doctrine “shield [s] innocent heirs from financial obligations intended to punish their deceased ancestors.” Devin, 158 Wn.2d at 163 .	2	3
State v. Furthred wash · 1914 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006In response, this court examined Pomeroy and other cases around the country in which the abatement rule was applied and concluded, "We think the action abated as to the appellant Furth upon his 602 death." Id. at 672, 144 P. 907 . 2006*In response, this court examined Pomeroy and other cases around the country in which the abatement rule was applied and concluded, “We think the action abated as to the appellant Furth upon his death.” Id. at 672.	1	2
Himes v. MacIntyre-Himesgreen wash · 1998 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See Himes, 136 Wn.2d at 719-726 (discussing cases); Fiorito, 112 Wn.	1	1
In re the Marriage of Fioritogreen washctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See Himes, 136 Wn.2d at 719-726 (discussing cases); Fiorito, 112 Wn.	1	1
Burks v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Banks neutral wash · 1917 2 sentences 2006A ¶14 Besides Furth , the only published opinion in Washington applying the abatement rule is State v. Banks, 94 Wash. 237, 237-38 , 161 P. 1189 (1917), consisting of a mere three paragraphs. 2006A ¶14 Besides Furth , the only published opinion in Washington applying the abatement rule is State v. Banks, 94 Wash. 237, 237-38 , 161 P. 1189 (1917), consisting of a mere three paragraphs.	2	2006–2006
Matter of Marriage of Pratt green wash · 1983 1 sentence 2017Id. at 908 .	1	2017–2017
State v. Carlin green alaska · 2011 2 sentences 2011Both of those courts discussed at length the abatement rule and whether it would be followed in their states. ¶17 The Alaska court in Carlin held that a public defender is “authorized to continue representing a deceased defendant after the personal representative of the defendant’s estate chooses to continue the appeal.” Carlin, 249 P.3d at 765 . 2011Alaska’s Public Defender Act states that “ ‘[a]n indigent person who is under formal charge of having committed a serious crime and the crime has been the subject of an initial appearance or subsequent proceeding, or is being detained under a conviction of a serious crime’ is entitled to ‘be represented.’ ” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Alaska Stat. § 18.85.100 (a)).	1	2011–2011
State v. Webb green wash · 2009 1 sentence 2011Id. at 172. ¶9 The Washington Supreme Court again addressed the abatement rule in State v. Webb, 167 Wn.2d 470, 472 , 219 P.3d 695 (2009).	1	2011–2011
State v. Webb green wash · 2009 1 sentence 2011Id. at 172. ¶9 The Washington Supreme Court again addressed the abatement rule in State v. Webb, 167 Wn.2d 470, 472 , 219 P.3d 695 (2009).	1	2011–2011
State v. Devin green wash · 2006 2 sentences 2009Once the defendant dies, this purpose cannot be carried out and the abatement doctrine "shield[s] innocent heirs from financial obligations intended to punish their deceased ancestors." Devin, 158 Wash.2d at 162-63 , 142 P.3d 599 . 2009Id. at 169-70, 142 P.3d 599 .	1	2009–2009
State v. Anderson green wash · 1982 2 sentences 2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa 2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa	1	2009–2009
State v. Burns green wash · 1909 2 sentences 2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa 2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa	1	2009–2009
State v. George neutral wash · 1915 2 sentences 2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa 2009However, we were not confronted with the double jeopardy challenge presented here.); see Burks, 437 U.S. at 15 (Noting that reversal for trial error “implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” the Supreme Court went on to define reversal based on trial error as “a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e.g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.”); State v. Anderson, 96 Wn.2d 739, 742 , 638 P.2d 1205 (1982) (double jeopa	1	2009–2009

Where else courts name it

TX 60 (1967–2026) MO 23 (1990–2025) CA 11 (1989–2023) ME 7 (2014–2021) WA 7 (2006–2017) NY 6 (1954–2025) OH 5 (1977–2017) VT 5 (1981–2018) AZ 5 (1998–2024) IL 4 (1957–2023) FL 4 (1999–2018) NC 3 (2001–2014) ID 3 (2012–2026) AL 3 (1997–1998) RI 3 (1983–2009) MN 3 (2012–2017) NM 2 (1976–1997) TN 2 (2018–2021) ND 2 (2001–2014) MA 2 (2019–2024) WV 2 (1980–1999) LA 2 (1961–1977)

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