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 2011–2024 4 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. Weber
green
2 sentences2017That rule provides as grounds for a new trial an "[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or prosecution ... by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial." He urges us to review the trial court's decision under the trial irregularity test set out in State v. Weber, 99 Wn.2d 158, 164-66 , 659 P.2d 1102 (1983). 2017That rule provides as grounds for a new trial an "[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or prosecution ... by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial." He urges us to review the trial court's decision under the trial irregularity test set out in State v. Weber, 99 Wn.2d 158, 164-66 , 659 P.2d 1102 (1983). | 4 | 2011–2021 |
State v. Hill
green
1 sentence2024Id. 10 No. 84017-7-I/11 An irregularity is serious when it could “materially affect the outcome of the trial.” See State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 286 , 778 P.2d 1014 (1989). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hopson
green
2 sentences2024Id. 10 No. 84017-7-I/11 An irregularity is serious when it could “materially affect the outcome of the trial.” See State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 286 , 778 P.2d 1014 (1989). 2024Id. 10 No. 84017-7-I/11 An irregularity is serious when it could “materially affect the outcome of the trial.” See State v. Hopson, 113 Wn.2d 273, 286 , 778 P.2d 1014 (1989). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Escalona
green
1 sentence2022State v. Escalona, 49 Wn. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2017Garcia, 177 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Crane
green
2 sentences2011State v. Crane, 116 Wash.2d 315, 332 , 804 P.2d 10 (1991) (citing State v. Weber, 99 Wash.2d 158, 164-65 , 659 P.2d 1102 (1983)). 2011State v. Crane, 116 Wash.2d 315, 332 , 804 P.2d 10 (1991) (citing State v. Weber, 99 Wash.2d 158, 164-65 , 659 P.2d 1102 (1983)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.