meaningful opportunity hearing (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

meaningful opportunity hearing in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2021 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Mathews v. Eldridge green
scotus · 1976
2 sentences

2010Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333-34 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L.

2010Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333-34 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L.

42009–2010
Foucha v. Louisiana green
scotus · 1992
2 sentences

2010He argues it allows the State to confine him without proving his paraphilia beyond a reasonable doubt because it deprives him of a meaningful opportunity for a hearing. ¶29 When the original basis for commitment no longer exists, a committed person is “entitled to constitutionally adequate procedures to establish the grounds for his confinement.” Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 79 , 112 S. Ct. 1780 , 118 L.

2010He argues it allows the State to confine him without proving his paraphilia beyond a reasonable doubt because it deprives him of a meaningful opportunity for a hearing. ¶29 When the original basis for commitment no longer exists, a committed person is “entitled to constitutionally adequate procedures to establish the grounds for his confinement.” Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 79 , 112 S. Ct. 1780 , 118 L.

22010–2010
In re the Detention of Fox green
washctapp · 2007
2 sentences

2010But in In re Detention of Fox, 138 Wash.App. 374, 398-400 , 158 P.3d 69 (2007), we determined that former RCW 71.09.090(4) did not violate due process because it did not prevent the petitioners from introducing actuarial or clinical data as evidence; instead, it prevented a finding of probable cause based solely on such evidence demonstrating a change in a single demographic factor. ¶ 32 Likewise, here the statute does not prevent McGary from introducing evidence of an erroneous paraphilia diagnosis at a show cause hearing; it only prevents a finding of probable cause based solely on evidence

2010But in In re Detention of Fox, 138 Wn.

22010–2010
City of Redmond v. Moore green
wash · 2004
2 sentences

2006City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wash.2d 664, 668 , 91 P.3d 875 (2004).

2006City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664, 668 , 91 P.3d 875 (2004).

22006–2006
City of Redmond v. Moore green
wash · 2004
2 sentences

2006City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wash.2d 664, 668 , 91 P.3d 875 (2004).

2006City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664, 668 , 91 P.3d 875 (2004).

22006–2006
State v. Jones green
wash · 2010
1 sentence

2021Ed. 2d 297 (1973), and State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720 , 230 P.3d 576 (2010), Ennis also characterizes the giving of the corroboration instruction as violating his due process right to a meaningful opportunity for his defense to be heard.

12021–2021
Chambers v. Mississippi green
scotus · 1973
1 sentence

2021Despite the breadth of Chambers’s reference to a “right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations,” 410 U.S. at 294 , the right to present a defense is not implicated by anything happening at trial that a defendant later contends was unfair.

12021–2021
State v. Ramos green
wash · 2010
1 sentence

2021Ed. 2d 297 (1973), and State v. Jones, 168 Wn.2d 713, 720 , 230 P.3d 576 (2010), Ennis also characterizes the giving of the corroboration instruction as violating his due process right to a meaningful opportunity for his defense to be heard.

12021–2021
Fox v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES green
washctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2010But in In re Detention of Fox, 138 Wash.App. 374, 398-400 , 158 P.3d 69 (2007), we determined that former RCW 71.09.090(4) did not violate due process because it did not prevent the petitioners from introducing actuarial or clinical data as evidence; instead, it prevented a finding of probable cause based solely on such evidence demonstrating a change in a single demographic factor. ¶ 32 Likewise, here the statute does not prevent McGary from introducing evidence of an erroneous paraphilia diagnosis at a show cause hearing; it only prevents a finding of probable cause based solely on evidence

12010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.289 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.324 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

ND 42 (1980–2026) CO 15 (1993–2026) MA 13 (1973–2026) MO 12 (1985–2010) UT 9 (1988–2020) AR 7 (1972–2016) PA 7 (2007–2024) WA 7 (2006–2021) CA 5 (2009–2025) CT 4 (1978–2009) OR 4 (2019–2022) FL 4 (1998–2007) KS 4 (1997–2019) OH 3 (2008–2026) NY 3 (1990–2001) MI 3 (2022–2026) TX 2 (2012–2015) SD 2 (1994–2007) VT 2 (2019–2023) WY 2 (1988–1989) NM 2 (2013–2013) RI 2 (2012–2026) TN 2 (2012–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check