deferential abuse of discretion standard (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

deferential abuse of discretion standard in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 2 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Ermine v. City of Spokanegreen
wash · 2001 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016Ermine, 143 Wn.2d at 650 (emphasizing the deferential abuse of discretion standard applied in reviewing a court's decision to grant or deny attorney fees in a nominal damages case).

11

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 (10)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Woods green
wash · 2001
2 sentences

2007Woods, 143 Wash.2d at 597-98 , 23 P.3d 1046 (citing State v. Briscoeray, 95 Wash.App. 167, 171 , 974 P.2d 912 (1999)).

2007Woods, 143 Wn.2d at 597 -98 (citing State v. Briscoeray, 95 Wn.

22007–2007
State v. Brown green
wash · 1995
2 sentences

2007In Brown, we said: While we are sympathetic to the Court of Appeals' desire to defer to the trial court's evaluation of the complaining witness' credibility and hence ultimately of the [statement's] reliability, this approach has no place in the excited utterance rule. 127 Wash.2d at 758 , 903 P.2d 459 . ¶ 13 However, in 2001 we reaffirmed that the deferential abuse of discretion standard should be used in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit an excited utterance.

2007In Brown, we said: While we are sympathetic to the Court of Appeals’ desire to defer to the trial court’s evaluation of the complaining witness’ credibility and hence ultimately of the [statement’s] reliability, this approach has no place in the excited utterance rule. 127 Wn.2d at 758 . ¶16 However, in 2001 we reaffirmed that the deferential abuse of discretion standard should be used in reviewing a trial court’s decision to admit an excited utterance.

22007–2007
State v. Briscoeray green
washctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2007Woods, 143 Wash.2d at 597-98 , 23 P.3d 1046 (citing State v. Briscoeray, 95 Wash.App. 167, 171 , 974 P.2d 912 (1999)).

2007Woods, 143 Wn.2d at 597 -98 (citing State v. Briscoeray, 95 Wn.

22007–2007
State v. Quaale green
wash · 2014
2 sentences

2024State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 196 , 340 P.3d 213 (2014).

2024State v. Quaale, 182 Wn.2d 191, 196 , 340 P.3d 213 (2014).

12024–2024
L.M. by and Through Dussault v. Hamilton green
wash · 2019
2 sentences

2024L.M. by & through Dussault v. Hamilton, 193 Wn.2d 113 , 134- 35, 436 P.3d 803 (2019).

2024L.M. by & through Dussault v. Hamilton, 193 Wn.2d 113 , 134- 35, 436 P.3d 803 (2019).

12024–2024
In re the Personal Restraint of Rainey green
wash · 2010
1 sentence

2017Rainey, 168 Wn.2d at 374-75 ; State v. Howard, 182 Wn.

12017–2017
State v. Howard green
washctapp · 2014
1 sentence

2017Rainey, 168 Wn.2d at 374-75 ; State v. Howard, 182 Wn.

12017–2017
State v. Woods green
wash · 2001
1 sentence

2007Woods, 143 Wash.2d at 597-98 , 23 P.3d 1046 (citing State v. Briscoeray, 95 Wash.App. 167, 171 , 974 P.2d 912 (1999)).

12007–2007
State v. Brown green
wash · 1995
1 sentence

2007In Brown, we said: While we are sympathetic to the Court of Appeals' desire to defer to the trial court's evaluation of the complaining witness' credibility and hence ultimately of the [statement's] reliability, this approach has no place in the excited utterance rule. 127 Wash.2d at 758 , 903 P.2d 459 . ¶ 13 However, in 2001 we reaffirmed that the deferential abuse of discretion standard should be used in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit an excited utterance.

12007–2007
State v. Marks green
washctapp · 1998
1 sentence

1999Marks, 90 Wn.

11999–1999

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.040 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.04.110 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 954 (1987–2026) WV 359 (1995–2026) TN 50 (2002–2026) VA 38 (2004–2026) TX 23 (1998–2025) IL 19 (2004–2026) KY 16 (2010–2026) OH 15 (1996–2025) NJ 14 (2018–2025) NM 13 (1998–2022) CT 12 (2006–2026) PA 12 (2010–2021) MN 10 (2005–2026) MI 10 (2002–2024) KS 10 (2010–2026) FL 9 (2013–2026) MS 8 (2000–2015) WA 7 (1999–2024) HI 7 (2004–2024) RI 7 (1998–2026) AK 5 (1995–2025) MD 5 (2004–2018) CO 5 (2015–2024) DE 4 (1987–2026) MA 4 (1999–2005) OK 4 (2001–2021) ME 2 (2011–2018) DC 2 (1998–1998) AZ 2 (2018–2024) MT 2 (2005–2013) VT 2 (2012–2013) NV 2 (2019–2021)

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