7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sublett
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2013The experience prong of the test “asks ‘whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public.’ ” Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (quoting Press II, 478 U.S. at 8 ). | 3 | 2013–2015 |
State v. Chen
green
2 sentences2014But relying on the limited drug court history of closed staffings to answer the experience prong inquiry begs the constitutional question. 7 8 The better approach is to analogize to comparables. ¶32 Here, guidance can be found in our recent decision in State v. Chen, 178 Wn.2d 350 , 309 P.3d 410 (2013), which addressed the applicability of article I, section 10’s presumption of openness to a competency evaluation considered by a trial court. 2014But relying on the limited drug court history of closed staffings to answer the experience prong inquiry begs the constitutional question. 7 8 The better approach is to analogize to comparables. ¶32 Here, guidance can be found in our recent decision in State v. Chen, 178 Wn.2d 350 , 309 P.3d 410 (2013), which addressed the applicability of article I, section 10’s presumption of openness to a competency evaluation considered by a trial court. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 516 n.10 (emphasis added). ¶15 We determine that the evidentiary conference in this case was not a sidebar as contemplated by the Smith court. 2016Id. at 516 n.10 (emphasis added). 7 No. 33073-7-III; 33074-5-III State v. Whitlock; State v. Johnson We determine that the evidentiary conference in this case was not a sidebar as contemplated by the Smith court. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Love
green
1 sentence2015But the court in Love cited no authority for this interpretation of the experience prong analysis. 176 Wn. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Riverside
green
1 sentence2013The experience prong of the test “asks ‘whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public.’ ” Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 73 (quoting Press II, 478 U.S. at 8 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |