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 2006–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Avilagreen2 sentences2011State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 19-22 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995); State v. Avila, 102 Wn. 2011State v. Alvarez, 128 Wash.2d 1, 19-22 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995); State v. Avila, 102 Wash.App. 882, 886-87, 896-97 , 10 P.3d 486 (2000), review denied, 143 Wash.2d 1009 , 21 P.3d 290 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Walshgreen2 sentences2006See Walsh, 143 Wash.2d 1 , 17 P.3d 591 . ¶ 22 The State cites defense counsel's declaration (filed after the deposition relied upon by Mr. Murillo) that he informed Mr. Murillo that his sentence would be for life, and that the court would only set a minimum sentence within the standard range. 2006See Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 1 . ¶22 The State cites defense counsel’s declaration (filed after the deposition relied upon by Mr. Murillo) that he informed Mr. Murillo that his sentence would be for life, and that the court would only set a minimum sentence within the standard range. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hescockgreen2 sentences2011See Hescock, 98 Wash.App. at 611 , 989 P.2d 1251 . ¶ 29 The State cites the rule that remand is generally proper where a trial court enters a conclusion of law finding a defendant guilty of a crime but omits a finding as to an essential element necessary to support that conclusion. 2011See Hescock, 98 Wash.App. at 611 , 989 P.2d 1251 . ¶ 29 The State cites the rule that remand is generally proper where a trial court enters a conclusion of law finding a defendant guilty of a crime but omits a finding as to an essential element necessary to support that conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walshgreen1 sentence2006See Walsh, 143 Wash.2d 1 , 17 P.3d 591 . ¶ 22 The State cites defense counsel's declaration (filed after the deposition relied upon by Mr. Murillo) that he informed Mr. Murillo that his sentence would be for life, and that the court would only set a minimum sentence within the standard range. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2011State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 19-22 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995); State v. Avila, 102 Wn. 2011State v. Alvarez, 128 Wash.2d 1, 19-22 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995); State v. Avila, 102 Wash.App. 882, 886-87, 896-97 , 10 P.3d 486 (2000), review denied, 143 Wash.2d 1009 , 21 P.3d 290 (2001). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2011State v. Alvarez, 128 Wn.2d 1, 19-22 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995); State v. Avila, 102 Wn. 2011State v. Alvarez, 128 Wash.2d 1, 19-22 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995); State v. Avila, 102 Wash.App. 882, 886-87, 896-97 , 10 P.3d 486 (2000), review denied, 143 Wash.2d 1009 , 21 P.3d 290 (2001). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2019The State cites the test our Supreme Court articulated in Smith: [L]aw enforcement may make a warrantless search of a residence if (1) it has a reasonable belief that assistance is immediately required to protect life or property,(2)the search is not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and (3) there is probable cause to associate the emergency with the place to be searched. 177 Wn.2d at 541 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Schultz
green
1 sentence2019In contrast, Beach relies on the six part test the court approved in State v. Schultz, 170 Wn.2d 746, 754-55 , 248 P.3d 484 (2011): [T]he government must show that "(1) the officer subjectively ' believed that someone likely needed assistance for health or safety concerns; (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was need for assistance; and (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place being searched." The Court of Appeals has suggested three more factors: (4) there is an imminent threat of substantial injury to pe | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Schultz
green
1 sentence2019In contrast, Beach relies on the six part test the court approved in State v. Schultz, 170 Wn.2d 746, 754-55 , 248 P.3d 484 (2011): [T]he government must show that "(1) the officer subjectively ' believed that someone likely needed assistance for health or safety concerns; (2) a reasonable person in the same situation would similarly believe that there was need for assistance; and (3) there was a reasonable basis to associate the need for assistance with the place being searched." The Court of Appeals has suggested three more factors: (4) there is an imminent threat of substantial injury to pe | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re the Personal Restraint Gentry
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Benn
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Mullen
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of Benn
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. W.R.
green
2 sentences2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Gregory
red
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Gregory
red
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Personal Restraint of Gentry
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Mullen
green
1 sentence2015For this reason, all of the authority that the State cites on the defense's duty to exercise due diligence in discovering exculpatory evidence is distinguishable. 4 The Court of Appeals correctly held that the prosecution suppressed evidence of Olson's incompetence in the Crime Lab, and of testifying witness Heath's knowledge of this incompetence, for purposes of the Brady analysis. 4In support of this argument, the State cites State v. Mullen, 171 Wn.2d 881, 896 , 259 P.3d 158 (2011), State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 798 , 147 P.3d 1201 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. W.R., 181 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Rice
green
2 sentences2013Finally, the State supplies a lengthy quotation regarding separation of powers from State v. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884 , 279 P.3d 849 (2012), then argues, 'The trial court 3 • No. 30870-7-111 State v. Attocknie overstepped its authority by essentially forcing the State to grant an immunity to Ms. Attocknie or forgo her testimony." Br. of Appellant at 6. 2013Finally, the State supplies a lengthy quotation regarding separation of powers from State v. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884 , 279 P.3d 849 (2012), then argues, 'The trial court 3 • No. 30870-7-111 State v. Attocknie overstepped its authority by essentially forcing the State to grant an immunity to Ms. Attocknie or forgo her testimony." Br. of Appellant at 6. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Avila
green
1 sentence2011State v. Alvarez, 128 Wash.2d 1, 19-22 , 904 P.2d 754 (1995); State v. Avila, 102 Wash.App. 882, 886-87, 896-97 , 10 P.3d 486 (2000), review denied, 143 Wash.2d 1009 , 21 P.3d 290 (2001). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.
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.