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 1974–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Warrengreen1 sentence2015Hopper must establish that the 23 ]d at 213. 24 Id at 214. 25 Emery. 174 Wn.2d at 757-59 (holding that a timely objection and instruction could have cured any prejudice stemming from a prosecutor's improper comments); Warren. 165 Wn.2d at 26-28 (holding that any error from the prosecutor's misstatement of the burden of proof and presumption of innocence did not result in incurable prejudice). 8 No. 71799-5-1/9 elements of his affirmative defense are "more probably true than not true."26 Therefore, Hopper fails to show that the prosecutor's comment was improper or there is a substantial likelih | 1 | 1 |
State v. Emerygreen1 sentence2015Hopper must establish that the 23 ]d at 213. 24 Id at 214. 25 Emery. 174 Wn.2d at 757-59 (holding that a timely objection and instruction could have cured any prejudice stemming from a prosecutor's improper comments); Warren. 165 Wn.2d at 26-28 (holding that any error from the prosecutor's misstatement of the burden of proof and presumption of innocence did not result in incurable prejudice). 8 No. 71799-5-1/9 elements of his affirmative defense are "more probably true than not true."26 Therefore, Hopper fails to show that the prosecutor's comment was improper or there is a substantial likelih | 1 | 1 |
| 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 of Glasmann
green
2 sentences2017Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d at 704 . 2015Glasmann, 175 Wn.2d at 713 . | 2 | 2015–2017 |
State v. Mail
green
2 sentences2004Mail, 121 Wn.2d at 713 . 2004Mail, 121 Wash.2d at 713 , 854 P.2d 1042 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Slater
green
2 sentences2025State v. Slater, 197 Wn.2d 660, 885 , 486 P.3d 873 (2021). 2025State v. Slater, 197 Wn.2d 660, 885 , 486 P.3d 873 (2021). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brown v. Quick Mix Co.
green
2 sentences1974For other illustrations of the timely objection requirement in order to permit appellate review, see State v. Jacobsen, 78 Wn.2d 491 , 477 P.2d 1 (1970); Brown v. Quick Mix Co., 75 Wn.2d 833 , 454 P.2d 205 (1969); State v. Reid, 74 Wn.2d 250 , 444 P.2d 155 (1968). 1974For other illustrations of the timely objection requirement in order to permit appellate review, see State v. Jacobsen, 78 Wn.2d 491 , 477 P.2d 1 (1970); Brown v. Quick Mix Co., 75 Wn.2d 833 , 454 P.2d 205 (1969); State v. Reid, 74 Wn.2d 250 , 444 P.2d 155 (1968). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Reid
neutral
2 sentences1974For other illustrations of the timely objection requirement in order to permit appellate review, see State v. Jacobsen, 78 Wn.2d 491 , 477 P.2d 1 (1970); Brown v. Quick Mix Co., 75 Wn.2d 833 , 454 P.2d 205 (1969); State v. Reid, 74 Wn.2d 250 , 444 P.2d 155 (1968). 1974For other illustrations of the timely objection requirement in order to permit appellate review, see State v. Jacobsen, 78 Wn.2d 491 , 477 P.2d 1 (1970); Brown v. Quick Mix Co., 75 Wn.2d 833 , 454 P.2d 205 (1969); State v. Reid, 74 Wn.2d 250 , 444 P.2d 155 (1968). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Jacobsen
green
2 sentences1974For other illustrations of the timely objection requirement in order to permit appellate review, see State v. Jacobsen, 78 Wn.2d 491 , 477 P.2d 1 (1970); Brown v. Quick Mix Co., 75 Wn.2d 833 , 454 P.2d 205 (1969); State v. Reid, 74 Wn.2d 250 , 444 P.2d 155 (1968). 1974For other illustrations of the timely objection requirement in order to permit appellate review, see State v. Jacobsen, 78 Wn.2d 491 , 477 P.2d 1 (1970); Brown v. Quick Mix Co., 75 Wn.2d 833 , 454 P.2d 205 (1969); State v. Reid, 74 Wn.2d 250 , 444 P.2d 155 (1968). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.