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 1984–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Personal Restraint of Hewsgreen2 sentences2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). 2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). | 2 | 4 |
MacHibroda v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). 2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Lockhart
green
2 sentences2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). 2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of Riley
green
2 sentences2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). 2018Id. (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 60 ); see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 ("Tf a petitioner makes at least a prima facie showing of actual prejudice, but the merits of the contentions cannot be determined solely on the record, the court should remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or for a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12."'(quoting Hews I, 99 Wn.2d at 88 )); Machibroda, 368 U.S. at 494 (holding that it was error for the district court to make factual findings on controverted facts without first conducting a reference hearing). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Monschke
green
2 sentences2017Monschke, 160 Wn. 2017Monschke, 160 Wn. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2017Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 865 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001). 14 State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 486 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008). -6- No. 75296-1-1 /7 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him.15 This court has three options when reviewing a PRP: (1) dismiss the petition, (2) remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12, or (3) grant the petition without remanding for fur 2017Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 865 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001). 14 State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 486 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008). -6- No. 75296-1-1 /7 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him.15 This court has three options when reviewing a PRP: (1) dismiss the petition, (2) remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12, or (3) grant the petition without remanding for fur | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Fleming
green
2 sentences2017Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 865 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001). 14 State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 486 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008). -6- No. 75296-1-1 /7 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him.15 This court has three options when reviewing a PRP: (1) dismiss the petition, (2) remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12, or (3) grant the petition without remanding for fur 2017Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 865 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001). 14 State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 486 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008). -6- No. 75296-1-1 /7 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him.15 This court has three options when reviewing a PRP: (1) dismiss the petition, (2) remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12, or (3) grant the petition without remanding for fur | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2017Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 865 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001). 14 State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 486 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008). -6- No. 75296-1-1 /7 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him.15 This court has three options when reviewing a PRP: (1) dismiss the petition, (2) remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12, or (3) grant the petition without remanding for fur 2017Restraint of Fleming, 142 Wn.2d 853, 865 , 16 P.3d 610 (2001). 14 State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477, 486 , 181 P.3d 831 (2008). -6- No. 75296-1-1 /7 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced him.15 This court has three options when reviewing a PRP: (1) dismiss the petition, (2) remand the petition for a full hearing on the merits or a reference hearing pursuant to RAP 16.11(a) and RAP 16.12, or (3) grant the petition without remanding for fur | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Reismiller
green
2 sentences1984In re Reismiller, 101 Wn.2d 291, 297-98 , 678 P.2d 323 (1984); In re Hews, 99 Wn.2d 80, 88 , 660 P.2d 263 (1983). [1] IV I would hold that the invited error rule does not bar a *109 challenge to an unconstitutional instruction where the party that offered and then challenged the instruction could not have known at the time he offered it that it was unconstitutional, or when it was offered as a tactical device to improve upon a less favorable prosecution instruction that was either unsuccessfully challenged before the trial court or could not have been successfully challenged under the law as i 1984In re Reismiller, 101 Wn.2d 291, 297-98 , 678 P.2d 323 (1984); In re Hews, 99 Wn.2d 80, 88 , 660 P.2d 263 (1983). [1] IV I would hold that the invited error rule does not bar a *109 challenge to an unconstitutional instruction where the party that offered and then challenged the instruction could not have known at the time he offered it that it was unconstitutional, or when it was offered as a tactical device to improve upon a less favorable prosecution instruction that was either unsuccessfully challenged before the trial court or could not have been successfully challenged under the law as i | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.