State argued error (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

State argued error in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2016 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.

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Womac green
wash · 2007
2 sentences

2008However, this argument was eviscerated by our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Womac, 160 Wash.2d 643 , 160 P.3d 40 (2007), which was filed after this case was remanded to us.

2008However, this argument was eviscerated by our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Womac, 160 Wn.2d 643 , 160 P.3d 40 (2007), which was filed after this case was remanded to us.

22008–2008
State v. Womac green
wash · 2007
2 sentences

2008However, this argument was eviscerated by our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Womac, 160 Wash.2d 643 , 160 P.3d 40 (2007), which was filed after this case was remanded to us.

2008However, this argument was eviscerated by our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Womac, 160 Wn.2d 643 , 160 P.3d 40 (2007), which was filed after this case was remanded to us.

22008–2008
State v. Wakefield green
wash · 1996
2 sentences

2000In Wakefield , the State argued for the doctrine because the trial court became involved in the plea negotiations "in response to a request from defense counsel ." Wakefield , 130 Wn.2d at 475 .

2000In Wakefield , the State argued for the doctrine because the trial court became involved in the plea negotiations “in response to a request from defense counsel” Wakefield, 130 Wn.2d at 475 .

22000–2000
Hamilton v. Department of Labor & Industries green
wash · 1988
1 sentence

2016Id.

12016–2016
State v. Ha'mim red
wash · 1997
1 sentence

2015Ha’mim, 132 Wn.2d at 846 .

12015–2015
State v. Wakefield green
wash · 1996
1 sentence

2000In Wakefield , the State argued for the doctrine because the trial court became involved in the plea negotiations "in response to a request from defense counsel." Wakefield, 130 Wash.2d at 475 , 925 P.2d 183 .

12000–2000
State v. Henry neutral
washctapp · 1984
1 sentence

1987App. 530 , 676 P.2d 521 (1984), the State argued that a defense witness was not unavailable because he improperly claimed his Fifth Amendment privilege.

11987–1987

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.010 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589 (3)

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

IL 29 (1981–2026) FL 13 (1993–2024) OR 10 (1984–2026) TX 10 (1989–2016) IN 9 (1995–2020) TN 8 (2000–2026) WA 7 (1987–2016) OH 7 (2005–2026) LA 6 (1996–2012) MS 6 (2002–2023) IA 5 (2017–2026) MO 5 (1997–2004) CT 4 (2004–2018) AZ 4 (1985–2018) UT 4 (1996–2023) KS 3 (2021–2024) MD 3 (1987–2024) MN 3 (2023–2024) NM 3 (1999–2007) NH 2 (2013–2013) NJ 2 (1996–2013) NC 2 (2020–2020) VT 2 (2009–2010) HI 2 (2013–2019)

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