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.
7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kitchengreen1 sentence1995State v. Kitchen, 75 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington
green
2 sentences2019App. 271, 277 , 152 P.3d 1044 (2007) (quoting Proqressive Animal VVelfare Soc‘v v. Univ. of __Vyash_., 54 Wn. 2007Progressive Animal Welfare Soc’y v. Univ. of Wash., 54 Wn. | 3 | 2007–2019 |
State v. Bazan
yellow
2 sentences2003App. 723, 730 , 904 P.2d 1167 (1995) (In determining whether the State acted with due diligence, “the court considers relevant factors, including whether the defendant was aware of the pending charge and the amount and nature of the information known or readily available to the State.”); City of Seattle v. Henderson, 67 Wn. 2000“In making this determination the court considers relevant factors, including whether the defendant was aware of the pending charge and the amount and nature of the information known or readily available to the State.” Bazan, 79 Wn. | 3 | 2000–2003 |
Zink v. City of Mesa
neutral
1 sentence2019App. 271, 277 , 152 P.3d 1044 (2007) (quoting Proqressive Animal VVelfare Soc‘v v. Univ. of __Vyash_., 54 Wn. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Zink v. City of Mesa
green
1 sentence2019However, “‘an explicit hour-by-hour analysis of each lawyer‘s time sheets’ is unnecessary as long as the court considers relevant factors and gives reasons for the amount awarded.” Zink v. City_ of Niesa, 137 Wn. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington
green
2 sentences2007Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Wash., 54 Wash.App. 180, 187 , 773 P.2d 114 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, 114 Wash.2d 677 , 790 P.2d 604 (1990). ¶ 16 The Zinks requested $32,239.73 in fees and costs. 2007Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Wash., 54 Wash.App. 180, 187 , 773 P.2d 114 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, 114 Wash.2d 677 , 790 P.2d 604 (1990). ¶ 16 The Zinks requested $32,239.73 in fees and costs. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of Seattle v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2003App. 723, 730 , 904 P.2d 1167 (1995) (In determining whether the State acted with due diligence, “the court considers relevant factors, including whether the defendant was aware of the pending charge and the amount and nature of the information known or readily available to the State.”); City of Seattle v. Henderson, 67 Wn. 2003App. 369, 376 , 841 P.2d 761 (1992) (Failure of warrant office to take any action on information received from informant about defendant’s whereabouts was not lack of due diligence because “[t]o require that the warrant office act promptly on every ‘tip’ received would be unrealistic and unduly burdensome.”). | 1 | 2003–2003 |