Brandenburg standard (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

Brandenburg standard in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2015 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Ferguson green
washctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2015In Ferguson, we did address the Brandenburg standard and concluded that "[ b] ecause the [ accomplice liability] statute' s language forbids advocacy directed at and likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action, it does not forbid the mere advocacy of law v_iolation that is protected under the holding of Brandenburg." Ferguson, 164 Wn.

2015In Ferguson, we did address the Brandenburg standard and concluded that "[ b] ecause the [ accomplice liability] statute' s language forbids advocacy directed at and likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action, it does not forbid the mere advocacy of law v_iolation that is protected under the holding of Brandenburg." Ferguson, 164 Wn.

52013–2015
Brandenburg v. Ohio green
scotus · 1969
2 sentences

2015We reject both arguments. 23 No. 44847 -5 -II Cons. wi No. 44877 -7 -II First, the Brentins argue that because the trial courts' reliance on the mens rea requirement does not meet the federal Brandenburg standard, the statute criminalizes speech other than that "' directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.. ' Br. of Appellant Anthony Brentin) at 26 ( quoting Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 , 89 S. Ct. 1827 , 23 L.

2015We reject both arguments. 23 No. 44847 -5 -II Cons. wi No. 44877 -7 -II First, the Brentins argue that because the trial courts' reliance on the mens rea requirement does not meet the federal Brandenburg standard, the statute criminalizes speech other than that "' directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.. ' Br. of Appellant Anthony Brentin) at 26 ( quoting Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 , 89 S. Ct. 1827 , 23 L.

22013–2015
State v. Nitsch green
washctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2014State v. Nitsch, 100 Wn.

2014State v. Nitsch, 100 Wn.

12014–2014
State v. Coleman green
washctapp · 2010
2 sentences

2013E No. 42941 1 II, - - consolidated with No 42997 7 II - - In Coleman, Division One rejected an identical argument. 155 Wn.

2013E No. 42941 1 II, - - consolidated with No 42997 7 II - - In Coleman, Division One rejected an identical argument. 155 Wn.

12013–2013

Where else courts name it

WA 7 (2013–2015) TX 3 (2015–2015) VA 2 (2001–2009) IN 2 (2015–2016) NY 2 (1981–1991) CA 2 (1985–1988) OR 2 (2024–2024)

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