multiple defendant (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

multiple defendant in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2026 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 (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Rise v. State of Oregongreen
ca9 · 1995 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004See also Olivas, 122 Wn.2d at 99-109 (Utter, J., concurring) (opining that although “special need” exception was not properly applied, search nevertheless comported with Fourth Amendment under a different, narrowly crafted exception — the minimally intrusive search exception); Rise, 59 F.3d at 1562 (taking into account the multiple factors of reduced expectations of privacy held by convicted felons, minimal intrusiveness of blood drawing, and public’s incontestable interest in deterring recidivism and identifying persons who commit crimes and the likelihood that a DNA data bank will advance th

2004See also, Rise, 59 F.3d at 1562 (taking into account the multiple factors of reduced expectations of privacy held by convicted felons, minimal intrusiveness of blood drawing, and public's incontestable interest in deterring recidivism and identifying persons who commit crimes and the likelihood that a DNA databank will advance this interest, the Oregon DNA database statute is reasonable and therefore constitutional under the Fourth Amendment).

22
State v. Olivasgreen
wash · 1993 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004See also Olivas, 122 Wn.2d at 99-109 (Utter, J., concurring) (opining that although “special need” exception was not properly applied, search nevertheless comported with Fourth Amendment under a different, narrowly crafted exception — the minimally intrusive search exception); Rise, 59 F.3d at 1562 (taking into account the multiple factors of reduced expectations of privacy held by convicted felons, minimal intrusiveness of blood drawing, and public’s incontestable interest in deterring recidivism and identifying persons who commit crimes and the likelihood that a DNA data bank will advance th

11
Kirkland v. Stategreen
gactapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998L. 261, 288-89 (1994) (“When a Multiple is the perpetrator of a crime, the law should treat the body as a whole. . . . [F]or Multiple defendants, the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity should not be available if the basis of insanity is MPD.”); compare Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 478, 480 , 304 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1983) (“[W]e will not begin to parcel criminal accountability out among the various inhabitants of the mind.”); State v. Grimsley, 3 Ohio App. 3d 265, 268 , 444 N.E.2d 1071, 1075-76 , 27 A.L.R.4th 1060 (1982) (“There was only one person driving the car and only one person accu

1998L. 261, 288-89 (1994) (“When a Multiple is the perpetrator of a crime, the law should treat the body as a whole. . . . [F]or Multiple defendants, the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity should not be available if the basis of insanity is MPD.”); compare Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 478, 480 , 304 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1983) (“[W]e will not begin to parcel criminal accountability out among the various inhabitants of the mind.”); State v. Grimsley, 3 Ohio App. 3d 265, 268 , 444 N.E.2d 1071, 1075-76 , 27 A.L.R.4th 1060 (1982) (“There was only one person driving the car and only one person accu

11
State v. Grimsleygreen
ohioctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
2 sentences

1998L. 261, 288-89 (1994) (“When a Multiple is the perpetrator of a crime, the law should treat the body as a whole. . . . [F]or Multiple defendants, the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity should not be available if the basis of insanity is MPD.”); compare Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 478, 480 , 304 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1983) (“[W]e will not begin to parcel criminal accountability out among the various inhabitants of the mind.”); State v. Grimsley, 3 Ohio App. 3d 265, 268 , 444 N.E.2d 1071, 1075-76 , 27 A.L.R.4th 1060 (1982) (“There was only one person driving the car and only one person accu

1998L. 261, 288-89 (1994) (“When a Multiple is the perpetrator of a crime, the law should treat the body as a whole. . . . [F]or Multiple defendants, the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity should not be available if the basis of insanity is MPD.”); compare Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 478, 480 , 304 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1983) (“[W]e will not begin to parcel criminal accountability out among the various inhabitants of the mind.”); State v. Grimsley, 3 Ohio App. 3d 265, 268 , 444 N.E.2d 1071, 1075-76 , 27 A.L.R.4th 1060 (1982) (“There was only one person driving the car and only one person accu

11

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Kitsap Bank v. Denley green
washctapp · 2013
1 sentence

2026The three most important factors, that can raise the presumption on their own, are: “(1) a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the beneficiary and the testator, (2) the beneficiary’s active participation in the transaction, and (3) whether the beneficiary received an unusually large part of the estate.” Kitsap Bank, 177 Wn.

12026–2026
JDFJ CORP. v. International Raceway, Inc. green
washctapp · 1999
1 sentence

2016They argue that under International Raceway, Inc. v JDFJ Corp., 97 Wn.

12016–2016
In Re the Marriage of James green
washctapp · 1995
1 sentence

2014In re Marriage of James, 79 Wn.

12014–2014
State v. Barberio green
washctapp · 1992
1 sentence

1996But we upheld the sentence because the trial court did not base the length of its exceptional sentence for second degree rape on a multiple of the standard range and the defendant conceded that the length was not excessive. 66 Wn.

11996–1996
State v. Altum green
washctapp · 1987
1 sentence

1996Altum distinguished Green because the exceptional sentences before it were not "determined simply as a multiple of the standard range sentence.” 47 Wn.

11996–1996

Where else courts name it

IA 20 (1991–2024) CA 16 (1971–2026) IL 13 (2015–2025) NC 11 (1979–2010) OH 9 (1990–2026) TX 8 (2012–2025) PA 8 (1979–2025) MI 8 (1983–2023) KS 7 (1984–2025) NJ 7 (1995–2021) WA 7 (1996–2026) DC 6 (1982–2025) IN 5 (1999–2017) MN 5 (1986–2017) MD 5 (1997–2012) DE 5 (1967–2020) ID 5 (1984–2020) NM 4 (1988–2015) HI 4 (1966–2014) FL 4 (1994–2018) CT 4 (1988–2008) LA 4 (2011–2022) NY 4 (1976–2004) WY 3 (1979–2007) AR 3 (2005–2025) RI 2 (2012–2012) AK 2 (1975–1991) NV 2 (2020–2022) VT 2 (1999–1999) KY 2 (1981–2024) SD 2 (1977–1985) GA 2 (2008–2009) CO 2 (1998–2012) ND 2 (1970–1975)

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