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 2 courts 2002–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sperry & Hutchinson Company, Plff. In Err., Vgreen2 sentences2002Constitutional Law § 777 (1985)("[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection."); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502, 505 , 31 S.Ct. 490, 491 , 55 L.Ed. 561, 563 (1911) ("[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time."); In re Moreno, 58 Cal.App.3d 740, 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78, 80 (1976) (prospective application of amendment reducing penalty for an offense does not violate equal p 2002Constitutional Law § 777 (1985)("[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection."); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502, 505 , 31 S.Ct. 490, 491 , 55 L.Ed. 561, 563 (1911) ("[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time."); In re Moreno, 58 Cal.App.3d 740, 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78, 80 (1976) (prospective application of amendment reducing penalty for an offense does not violate equal p | 1 | 1 |
In Re Morenogreen2 sentences2002Constitutional Law § 777 (1985)("[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection."); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502, 505 , 31 S.Ct. 490, 491 , 55 L.Ed. 561, 563 (1911) ("[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time."); In re Moreno, 58 Cal.App.3d 740, 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78, 80 (1976) (prospective application of amendment reducing penalty for an offense does not violate equal p 2002Constitutional Law § 777 (1985)("[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection."); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502, 505 , 31 S.Ct. 490, 491 , 55 L.Ed. 561, 563 (1911) ("[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time."); In re Moreno, 58 Cal.App.3d 740, 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78, 80 (1976) (prospective application of amendment reducing penalty for an offense does not violate equal p | 1 | 1 |
Venson Lane Myers v. Eddie S. Ylst, Wardengreen1 sentence2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is | 1 | 1 |
James Robert McQueary v. James Blodgett, Superintendent, Wsp Corrections, Dept of Indeterminate Sentencing Review Boardgreen1 sentence2002Constitutional Law § 777 (1985)("[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection."); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502, 505 , 31 S.Ct. 490, 491 , 55 L.Ed. 561, 563 (1911) ("[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time."); In re Moreno, 58 Cal.App.3d 740, 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78, 80 (1976) (prospective application of amendment reducing penalty for an offense does not violate equal p | 1 | 1 |
Robert Patrick Powell v. Kenneth Ducharme, Superintendent, Washington State Reformatorygreen1 sentence2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Personal Restraint of Stanphill
green
2 sentences2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is 2002Restraint of Stanphill, 134 Wn.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998) (equal protection is not violated “merely because the Legislature changed the standard sentencing range for a crime” or “changed its view of criminal punishment which resulted in offenders being subject to different punishment schemes”); Fuller v. Dep’t of Ret. | 7 | 2002–2025 |
Matter of Stanphill
green
2 sentences2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is 2002Restraint of Stanphill, 134 Wn.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998) (equal protection is not violated “merely because the Legislature changed the standard sentencing range for a crime” or “changed its view of criminal punishment which resulted in offenders being subject to different punishment schemes”); Fuller v. Dep’t of Ret. | 7 | 2002–2025 |
State v. Ross
green
2 sentences2009The court held that “a defendant’s equal protection rights are not violated ‘merely because the Legislature changed the standard sentencing range for a crime’ or ‘changed its view of criminal punishment which resulted in offenders being subject to different punishment schemes.’ ” Id. at 240-41 (quoting In re Pers. 2009The court held that: "a defendant's equal protection rights are not violated `merely because the Legislature changed the standard sentencing range for a crime' or `changed its view of criminal punishment which resulted in offenders being subject to different punishment schemes.'" Id. at 240-41, 95 P.3d 1225 (quoting In re Pers. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Reedy v. Reedy
green
2 sentences2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is 2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Fuller v. Department of Retirement Systems
neutral
2 sentences2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is 2002RCW 10.01.040 provides in pertinent part, "Whenever any criminal or penal statute shall be amended or repealed, all offenses committed or penalties or forfeitures incurred while it was in force shall be punished or enforced as if it were in force, notwithstanding such amendment or repeal, unless a contrary intention is expressly declared in the amendatory or repealing act...." [16] S.S.H.B. 2338 § 29. [17] See Myers v. Ylst, 897 F.2d 417, 421 (9th Cir.1990); Powell v. Ducharme 998 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1993). [18] In re Stanphill, 134 Wash.2d 165, 175 , 949 P.2d 365 (1998)(equal protection is | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence2025As the State correctly notes, it has long been the law of this state “that a defendant’s equal protection rights are not violated ‘merely because the Legislature changed the standard sentencing range for a crime’ or ‘changed its view of criminal punishment which resulted in offenders being subject to different punishment schemes.’ ” Ross, 152 Wn.2d at 240 -41 (quoting In re Pers. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Standifer
neutral
2 sentences2002Constitutional Law § 777 (1985)("[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection."); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502, 505 , 31 S.Ct. 490, 491 , 55 L.Ed. 561, 563 (1911) ("[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time."); In re Moreno, 58 Cal.App.3d 740, 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78, 80 (1976) (prospective application of amendment reducing penalty for an offense does not violate equal p 2002Constitutional Law § 777 (1985)("[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection."); Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502, 505 , 31 S.Ct. 490, 491 , 55 L.Ed. 561, 563 (1911) ("[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time."); In re Moreno, 58 Cal.App.3d 740, 743 , 130 Cal.Rptr. 78, 80 (1976) (prospective application of amendment reducing penalty for an offense does not violate equal p | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.