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 2006–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re the Personal Restraint Gentry
green
2 sentences2006Osborne, 110 P.3d at 995 . ¶48 Although Washington courts have not adopted a version of the three-part Osborne test, our Supreme Court favorably referred to a three-part test in Gentry regarding posttrial discovery. 137 Wn.2d at 392 . 2006Osborne, 110 P.3d at 995 . ¶48 Although Washington courts have not adopted a version of the three-part Osborne test, our Supreme Court favorably referred to a three-part test in Gentry regarding posttrial discovery. 137 Wn.2d at 392 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Osborne v. State
green
2 sentences2006Osborne, 110 P.3d at 995 . ¶48 Although Washington courts have not adopted a version of the three-part Osborne test, our Supreme Court favorably referred to a three-part test in Gentry regarding posttrial discovery. 137 Wn.2d at 392 . 2006Osborne, 110 P.3d at 995 . ¶48 Although Washington courts have not adopted a version of the three-part Osborne test, our Supreme Court favorably referred to a three-part test in Gentry regarding posttrial discovery. 137 Wn.2d at 392 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Osborne v. Osborne
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 146-47 . ¶18 In summary, the Osborne standard requires proof that the relocation decision of the presumptively fit parent will be so harmful to the child as to outweigh the presumed benefits of the change to the child and the relocating parent. 2006Id. at 146-47 . ¶18 In summary, the Osborne standard requires proof that the relocation decision of the presumptively fit parent will be so harmful to the child as to outweigh the presumed benefits of the change to the child and the relocating parent. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2017The court did so based on Osborne's declaration, which listed 2 State v. Bennett. 161 Wn.2d 303, 318 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 3 See State v. Harsted. 66 Wash. 158,164-65 , 119 P. 24 (1911). 4 State v. Lizarraga. 191 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2017The court did so based on Osborne's declaration, which listed 2 State v. Bennett. 161 Wn.2d 303, 318 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 3 See State v. Harsted. 66 Wash. 158,164-65 , 119 P. 24 (1911). 4 State v. Lizarraga. 191 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State Of Washington v. Jorge Luis Lizarraga
green
1 sentence2017The court did so based on Osborne's declaration, which listed 2 State v. Bennett. 161 Wn.2d 303, 318 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 3 See State v. Harsted. 66 Wash. 158,164-65 , 119 P. 24 (1911). 4 State v. Lizarraga. 191 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Harsted
green
2 sentences2017The court did so based on Osborne's declaration, which listed 2 State v. Bennett. 161 Wn.2d 303, 318 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 3 See State v. Harsted. 66 Wash. 158,164-65 , 119 P. 24 (1911). 4 State v. Lizarraga. 191 Wn. 2017The court did so based on Osborne's declaration, which listed 2 State v. Bennett. 161 Wn.2d 303, 318 , 165 P.3d 1241 (2007). 3 See State v. Harsted. 66 Wash. 158,164-65 , 119 P. 24 (1911). 4 State v. Lizarraga. 191 Wn. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sepich v. Department of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2016Sepich v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 75 Wn.2d 312, 319 , 450 P.2d 940 (1969), citing Omeitt v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 21 Wn.2d 684 , 152 P.2d 973 (1944).21 We decline to exercise our discretion to consider Osborne's challenge to the admissibility of the reports under these circumstances. 2016Sepich v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 75 Wn.2d 312, 319 , 450 P.2d 940 (1969), citing Omeitt v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 21 Wn.2d 684 , 152 P.2d 973 (1944).21 We decline to exercise our discretion to consider Osborne's challenge to the admissibility of the reports under these circumstances. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Easley v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Sea-Land Service, Inc., 99 Wn. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Omeitt v. Department of Labor & Industries
neutral
2 sentences2016Sepich v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 75 Wn.2d 312, 319 , 450 P.2d 940 (1969), citing Omeitt v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 21 Wn.2d 684 , 152 P.2d 973 (1944).21 We decline to exercise our discretion to consider Osborne's challenge to the admissibility of the reports under these circumstances. 2016Sepich v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 75 Wn.2d 312, 319 , 450 P.2d 940 (1969), citing Omeitt v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 21 Wn.2d 684 , 152 P.2d 973 (1944).21 We decline to exercise our discretion to consider Osborne's challenge to the admissibility of the reports under these circumstances. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Custody of Osborne
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 146-47, 79 P.3d 465 . ¶ 18 In summary, the Osborne standard requires proof that the relocation decision of the presumptively fit parent will be so harmful to the child as to outweigh the presumed benefits of the change to the child and the relocating parent. 2006Id. at 146-47, 79 P.3d 465 . ¶ 18 In summary, the Osborne standard requires proof that the relocation decision of the presumptively fit parent will be so harmful to the child as to outweigh the presumed benefits of the change to the child and the relocating parent. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Marriage of Horner
green
2 sentences2006Osborne, 119 Wash.App. at 146-47 , 79 P.3d 465 . ¶ 19 In In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wash.2d 884 , 93 P.3d 124 (2004), the Washington Supreme Court adopted the reasoning in Osborne. 2006Osborne, 119 Wash.App. at 146-47 , 79 P.3d 465 . ¶ 19 In In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wash.2d 884 , 93 P.3d 124 (2004), the Washington Supreme Court adopted the reasoning in Osborne. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In re the Marriage of Horner
green
2 sentences2006Osborne, 119 Wash.App. at 146-47 , 79 P.3d 465 . ¶ 19 In In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wash.2d 884 , 93 P.3d 124 (2004), the Washington Supreme Court adopted the reasoning in Osborne. 2006Osborne, 119 Wash.App. at 146-47 , 79 P.3d 465 . ¶ 19 In In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wash.2d 884 , 93 P.3d 124 (2004), the Washington Supreme Court adopted the reasoning in Osborne. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Personal Restraint of Gentry
green
2 sentences2006Osborne, 110 P.3d at 995 . ¶ 48 Although Washington courts have not adopted a version of the three-part Osborne test, our Supreme Court favorably referred to a three-part test in Gentry regarding post-trial discovery. 137 Wash.2d at 392 , 972 P.2d 1250 . 2006Osborne, 110 P.3d at 995 . ¶ 48 Although Washington courts have not adopted a version of the three-part Osborne test, our Supreme Court favorably referred to a three-part test in Gentry regarding post-trial discovery. 137 Wash.2d at 392 , 972 P.2d 1250 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.