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 1979–2018 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. Singhgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., State v. Singh, 167 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leshgreen1 sentence1979See State v. Lesh, 132 Wash. 309 , 232 P. 302 (1925). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leshgreen1 sentence1979See State v. Lesh, 132 Wash. 309 , 232 P. 302 (1925). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2013In Allen, as in Atkins, the jury was given an instruction defining true threat. 294 P.3d at 689 . 2013In Allen, as in Atkins, the jury was given an instruction defining “true threat.” 176 Wn.2d at 630 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Tellez
green
2 sentences2008At trial, the jury was given an instruction stating: "[a] true threat is a statement made in a context or under such circumstances where a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to carry out the threat." Id. at 482, 170 P.3d 75 . 2008At trial, the jury was given an instruction stating, “ ‘[a] true threat is a statement made in a context or under such circumstances where a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to carry out the threat.’ ” Id. at 482 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. McAllister
green
2 sentences1991App. 654 , 806 P.2d 772 (1991). 1991In MacMaster , at 229 (quoting instruction 5), the jury was given this instruction: To convict the defendant of the crime of vehicular homicide, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (2) That at the time, the defendant: (a) operated the motor vehicle and was under the influence of, or affected by intoxicating liquor, and thereby proximately caused injury to [decedent], .... *775 MacMaster , at 235, stated, "For defendant to be guilty of vehicular homicide, the condition of impairment due to alcohol must have been a proximate cause of the fatal ac | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.
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.