7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Victor Manuel Torres-Castrogreen2 sentences2018So at least part of the Ninth Circuit views this as an open controversy. ^ The Tenth Circuit also declined to extend the Buie doctrine to nonarrest situations, stating that "[fjollowing Buie, we held that such 'protective sweeps' are only permitted incident to an arrest." Torres-Castro, 470 F.3d at 997 (noting "[wjhatever our view of the holdings in Davis and Smith, we [the panel] are not free to overmle those decisions and adopt the majority view allowing protective sweeps based on reasonable suspicion alone. 2018So at least part of the Ninth Circuit views this as an open controversy. ^ The Tenth Circuit also declined to extend the Buie doctrine to nonarrest situations, stating that "[fjollowing Buie, we held that such 'protective sweeps' are only permitted incident to an arrest." Torres-Castro, 470 F.3d at 997 (noting "[wjhatever our view of the holdings in Davis and Smith, we [the panel] are not free to overmle those decisions and adopt the majority view allowing protective sweeps based on reasonable suspicion alone. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Garcia-Jassogreen1 sentence2014United States v. Garcia-Jasso. 472 F.3d 239, 243 (5th Cir. 2006). -15- NO. 69516-9-1/16 The judge called a recess to give Townsel time to "cool down." Though after the recess Townsel repeated, "I don't want him representing me," he stayed for the rest of the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Garcia v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2019Garcia, 63 Wn. 2019Garcia, 63 Wn. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
County of Los Angeles v. Mendez
green
2 sentences2018The Ninth Circuit's Mendez opinion did not apply the Garcia analysis to the case, but noted the intracircuit split and stated, "[T]he deputies' protective sweep argument fails for another reason. ... [T]he deputies did not have the requisite suspicion of danger to justify a protective sweep." Id. 2018The Ninth Circuit's Mendez opinion did not apply the Garcia analysis to the case, but noted the intracircuit split and stated, "[T]he deputies' protective sweep argument fails for another reason. ... [T]he deputies did not have the requisite suspicion of danger to justify a protective sweep." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Knapstad
green
1 sentence2017CrR 8.3(c); State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d *531 346, 352-53, 729 P.2d 48 (1986). 1 The defendant initiates such a motion by filing a sworn affidavit. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hopson
green
1 sentence2013Curative Instruction ¶30 The third Hopson factor is whether the trial court properly instructed the jury to disregard the irregularity. 113 Wn.2d at 284 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Law
green
1 sentence2011Law, 154 Wn.2d at 97 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wilson v. Steinbach
green
2 sentences1991Coleman and Kennedy, JJ., concur. 1 We note that Garcia’s claim against Macias remains intact. 2 Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437 , 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). 3 McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 303 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). 4 McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303 . 5 This is the difference between collateral estoppel and res judicata. 1991Coleman and Kennedy, JJ., concur. 1 We note that Garcia’s claim against Macias remains intact. 2 Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437 , 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). 3 McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 303 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). 4 McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303 . 5 This is the difference between collateral estoppel and res judicata. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
McDaniels v. Carlson
green
2 sentences1991Coleman and Kennedy, JJ., concur. 1 We note that Garcia’s claim against Macias remains intact. 2 Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437 , 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). 3 McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 303 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). 4 McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303 . 5 This is the difference between collateral estoppel and res judicata. 1991Coleman and Kennedy, JJ., concur. 1 We note that Garcia’s claim against Macias remains intact. 2 Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437 , 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). 3 McDaniels v. Carlson, 108 Wn.2d 299, 303 , 738 P.2d 254 (1987). 4 McDaniels, 108 Wn.2d at 303 . 5 This is the difference between collateral estoppel and res judicata. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.