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 2006–2021 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Henderson v. Tyrrellgreen2 sentences2021Indeed, Washington law regarding spoliation provides that “for a direct sanction to apply the spoliation must in some way be connected to the party against whom the sanction is directed.” Henderson v. Tyrrell, 80 Wn. 2014See Henderson v. Tyrrell, 80 Wn. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tavai v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015In determining a party's culpability or fault in the destruction of evidence, "[w]e examine whether the party acted in bad faith or No. 71424-4-1/6 conscious disregard of the importance of the evidence or whether there was some innocent explanation for the destruction." Tavai. 176 Wn. 2014Tavai, 176 Wn. | 2 | 2014–2015 |
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2006Thus, the spoliation rule does not apply. 536 U.S. 101 , 122 S. Ct. 2061 , 153 L. 2006Thus, the spoliation rule does not apply. 536 U.S. 101 , 122 S. Ct. 2061 , 153 L. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Victor Sivilla
green
1 sentence2021The trial court denied Derri’s proposed instruction, reasoning, among other things, that “Sivilla is distinguishable because it was a spoliation case.” Indeed, the Sivilla court held that a defendant was entitled to a spoliation instruction because, in relevant part, “evidence was destroyed while in the government’s custody.” 714 F.3d at 1173 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ammons
green
1 sentence2021Indeed, “[t]he defendant’s declaration under oath will suspend the use of the prior conviction in assessing the presumptive standard sentence range until the State proves by independent evidence . . . that the defendant before the court for sentencing and named in the prior conviction are the same.” Ammons, 105 Wn.2d at 190 . 13 Neither was Derri entitled to a spoliation instruction. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.