Armstrong analysis in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2009 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 (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Madridgreen washctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Therefore, under Posey, (1) in Madrid, we should have considered the legislature's 2007 amendment to the statute if the parties had asserted its removal of the cross-reference to RCW 10.31.100(2) as controlling; and (2) in Hogan, instead of relying on the legislature's 2000 amendment, which added the cross-reference to RCW 10.31.100(2), we should have considered the 2007 amendment, which removed the cross-reference in order to "restore and make clear its intent that a willful violation of a no-contact provision of a court order is a criminal offense." Madrid, 145 Wash.App. at 113 , 192 P.3d 90 2009See State v. Madrid, 145 Wash. App. 106, 108 , 192 P.3d 909 (2008); State v. Hogan, 145 Wash.App. 210, 212 , 192 P.3d 915 (2008).	1	1
State v. Madridgreen washctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See State v. Madrid, 145 Wash. App. 106, 108 , 192 P.3d 909 (2008); State v. Hogan, 145 Wash.App. 210, 212 , 192 P.3d 915 (2008).	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 (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Thomas green washctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2001Judge Sebring concluded that “under State v. Thomas, 79 Wn. 2001Judge Sebring concluded that "under State v. Thomas, 79 Wash.App. 32 , 899 P.2d 1312 (1995), the State may not file new charges if a defendant breaches a plea agreement, regardless of the language in the ... agreement... unless the State allows the defendant to withdraw his ... guilty plea[.]" Clerk's Papers at 81.	2	2001–2001
Presbytery of Seattle v. King County green wash · 1990 2 sentences 2000We said in Presbytery of Seattle, 114 Wn.2d at 330 -31: To determine whether the regulation violates due process, the court should engage in the classic 3-prong due process test and ask: (1) whether the regulation is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose; (2) whether it uses means that are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; and (3) whether it is unduly oppressive on the land owner. 2000We said in Presbytery of Seattle, 114 Wn.2d at 330 -31: To determine whether the regulation violates due process, the court should engage in the classic 3-prong due process test and ask: (1) whether the regulation is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose; (2) whether it uses means that are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; and (3) whether it is unduly oppressive on the land owner.	2	2000–2000
State v. Bunker green washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2009App. 407, 418-20 , 183 P.3d 1086 (2008).	1	2009–2009
State v. Hogan green washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2009See State v. Madrid, 145 Wash. App. 106, 108 , 192 P.3d 909 (2008); State v. Hogan, 145 Wash.App. 210, 212 , 192 P.3d 915 (2008).	1	2009–2009
State v. Bunker green washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2009App. at 113 (quoting Laws of 2007, ch. 173, §1). ¶46 Accordingly, I now depart from Madrid and Hogan, concur in Judge Armstrong’s analysis here, join him in holding that under RCW 26.50.110(1) any willful violation of a no-contact provision of a court order is a criminal offense, and affirm. 15 State v. Bunker, 144 Wn.	1	2009–2009
State v. Hogan green washctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2009See State v. Madrid, 145 Wash. App. 106, 108 , 192 P.3d 909 (2008); State v. Hogan, 145 Wash.App. 210, 212 , 192 P.3d 915 (2008).	1	2009–2009
Anhold v. Daniels green wash · 1980 2 sentences 1982For a private individual to initiate an action under the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, "the conduct complained of must: (1) be unfair or deceptive; (2) be within the sphere of trade or commerce; and (3) impact the public interest." Anhold v. Daniels, 94 Wn.2d 40, 45 , 614 P.2d 184 (1980). 1982For a private individual to initiate an action under the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, "the conduct complained of must: (1) be unfair or deceptive; (2) be within the sphere of trade or commerce; and (3) impact the public interest." Anhold v. Daniels, 94 Wn.2d 40, 45 , 614 P.2d 184 (1980).	1	1982–1982

Where else courts name it

MS 146 (1994–2026) CA 13 (1983–2024) FL 10 (1973–2019) TX 9 (1999–2026) WA 7 (1982–2009) OH 5 (1995–2017) MD 4 (1968–2006) MI 4 (1893–2023) MT 4 (2000–2024) WI 4 (2003–2020) IN 3 (2010–2017) DC 3 (1992–2016) OR 3 (1908–2009) VA 2 (2007–2023) AL 2 (1990–2026) NJ 2 (1992–1997) NE 2 (1974–2017)

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