51 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paul A. Wright, on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. Chase Rivelandgreen2 sentences2014Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Portman, 995 F.2d at 904 ). 2014Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 ( 9th Cir. 2000) ( quoting Portman, 995 F. 2d at 904 ). | 2 | 2 |
In re the Detention of McCuistiongreen2 sentences2011But the McCuistion dissent asserted that a procedural due process analysis applies in SVP challenges where the question involves the adequacy of procedural safeguards and distinguished substantive due process violations as those prohibiting government actions "`regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.'" 169 Wash.2d at 657, 238 P.3d 1147 (Owens, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Pers. 2011But the McCuistion dissent asserted that a procedural due process analysis applies in SVP challenges where the question involves the adequacy of procedural safeguards and distinguished substantive due process violations as those prohibiting government actions “ ‘regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’ ” 169 Wn.2d at 657 (Owens, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Pers. | 2 | 2 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2025The essence behind the procedural due process requirement is that an individual “‘in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. 2025The essence behind the procedural due process requirement is that an individual “‘in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.’” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. | 1 | 12 |
Durland v. San Juan Countygreen2 sentences2020“To prevail in a § 1983 action alleging deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct complained of deprived the plaintiff of a cognizable property interest without due process.” Durland, 182 Wn.2d at 70 . 11 No. 37051-8-III Webb v. WSU Procedural Due Process “‘A procedural due process claim has two distinct elements: (1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.’” Roybal v. Toppenish Sch. 2017See Durland v. San Juan County, 182 Wn.2d 55, 70 , 340 P.3d 191 (2014); Greenhalgh v. Dep’t of Corr., 180 Wn. | 1 | 2 |
Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islandgreen1 sentence2024App. 366, 383 , 223 P.3d 1172 (2009) (“LUPA time limits also apply to due process claims.”). | 1 | 1 |
Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Islandgreen1 sentence2024App. 784, 798-99 , 133 P.3d 475 (2006) (holding that the petitioners’ due process challenge failed where they failed to appeal within 21 days of the building permit’s issuance even when they complained of lack of notice under the procedural due process clause), review denied, 159 Wn.2d 1005 (2007); Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 153 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
Carey v. Piphusgreen2 sentences2023See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 , 98 S. Ct. 1042 , 55 L. 2023See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 , 98 S. Ct. 1042 , 55 L. | 1 | 1 |
Didlake v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See Didlake v. State, 186 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
Robert Roybal v. Toppenish School Districtgreen1 sentence2020Dist., 871 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. | 1 | 1 |
| City of Bellevue v. Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
City of Bellevue v. Leegreen2 sentences2019Under Mathews, courts consider three factors in determining whether the process afforded to an individual was sufficient to satisfy the due process clause: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second,the risk ofan erroneous deprivation ofsuch interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. 424 U.S. at 33 2019Fields had the opportunity to request reconsideration by the licensing supervisor, to appeal her disqualification to the Office of Administrative Hearings, and to challenge her disqualification in superior court as a violation of her substantive due process rights. 3 The fact that she was not able to challenge the constitutionality of this rule within the administrative process itself is not a procedural due process violation. ¶ 49 Under Mathews , courts consider three factors in determining whether the process afforded to an individual was sufficient to satisfy the due process clause: First, | 1 | 1 |
| Bellevue School District v. E.S.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bellevue School Dist. v. Esgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Searcy v. Simmonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Spokane v. Douglassgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Matter of Personal Restraint of Youngred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greenegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Detention of Thorellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Copelandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Detention of Thorellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brousseaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brousseaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greenegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Copelandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Board
green
2 sentences2025“To establish a procedural due process violation, the party must establish that he or she has been deprived of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to a final, not tentative, determination.” Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 127 Wn. 2017"Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to final agency action."49 "To establish a procedural due process violation, the party must establish that he or she has been deprived of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to a final, not tentative, determination."50 An agency violates substantive due process when its decision is "irrational, arbitrary and capricious" or "was tainted by improper motive."51 46 WAC 192-340-020; RCW 50.12.080. 47 RCW 50.12.080. 48 AR at 1040 (Finding of Fact 4.26). 49 Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 127 Wn. | 6 | 2007–2025 |
Nelson v. Colorado
green
2 sentences2025Nelson concerned a procedural due process challenge to a state statute requiring individuals with invalidated convictions to prove their innocence to recover funds paid to the State. 581 U.S. at 132-34 . 2024But Nelson v. Colorado performed a procedural due process analysis, so its reasoning does not support a substantive due process claim. 581 U.S. at 134-35 . | 5 | 2024–2025 |
cluster 392722
green
2 sentences2025Id. (citing Pullman Power Prods., Inc. v. Marshall, 655 F.2d 41 , 44 (4th Cir. 1981)). 2005Pullman Power Prods., Inc. v. Marshall, 655 F.2d 41 , 44 (4th Cir. 1981). | 3 | 2005–2025 |
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences2025App. 62 , 81, 110 P.3d 812 (2005). 2025Id. (citing Pullman Power Prods., Inc. v. Marshall, 655 F.2d 41 , 44 (4th Cir. 1981)). | 2 | 2017–2025 |
Sheldon Portman v. County of Santa Clara Bob Diridon
green
2 sentences2014Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Portman, 995 F.2d at 904 ). 2014Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 ( 9th Cir. 2000) ( quoting Portman, 995 F. 2d at 904 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Salerno
green
2 sentences2013Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 . 2013Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Bush
green
2 sentences2011Restraint of Bush, 164 Wash.2d 697, 706 , 193 P.3d 103 (2008)). 2011Restraint of Bush, 164 Wn.2d 697, 706 , 193 P.3d 103 (2008)). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Bush
green
2 sentences2011Restraint of Bush, 164 Wash.2d 697, 706 , 193 P.3d 103 (2008)). 2011Restraint of Bush, 164 Wn.2d 697, 706 , 193 P.3d 103 (2008)). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Sheep Mountain Cattle Co. v. Department of Ecology
green
2 sentences2005App. 427, 431 , 726 P.2d 55 (1986). ¶47 In Sheep Mountain, we found a procedural due process violation because the earlier version of RCW 90.14.130 “failed to provide any due process prior to a termination order by DOE.” Sheep Mountain, 45 Wn. 2005App. 427, 431 , 726 P.2d 55 (1986). ¶47 In Sheep Mountain, we found a procedural due process violation because the earlier version of RCW 90.14.130 “failed to provide any due process prior to a termination order by DOE.” Sheep Mountain, 45 Wn. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences1978See Blondheim v. State, supra; State v. Dixon, 78 Wn.2d 796, 805-06 , 479 P.2d 931 (1971). 1978See Blondheim v. State, supra; State v. Dixon, 78 Wn.2d 796, 805-06 , 479 P.2d 931 (1971). | 2 | 1976–1978 |
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
green
2 sentences2025Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (brackets in original) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L. 2025Ed. 2d 18 (1976) (brackets in original) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 171-172 , 71 S.Ct. 624 , 95 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Asche v. Bloomquist
green
1 sentence2024App. 784, 798-99 , 133 P.3d 475 (2006) (holding that the petitioners’ due process challenge failed where they failed to appeal within 21 days of the building permit’s issuance even when they complained of lack of notice under the procedural due process clause), review denied, 159 Wn.2d 1005 (2007); Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 153 Wn. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Welfare of M.B.
green
2 sentences2022In re Welfare of M.B., 195 Wn.2d 859, 877 , 467 P.3d 969 (2020). 2022In re Welfare of M.B., 195 Wn.2d 859, 877 , 467 P.3d 969 (2020). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Burrell v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
1 sentence2021In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918, 931 , 976 P.2d 113 (1999) (Washington’s termination statutes do not require a court to consider dependency guardianship as an alternative to termination where no petition has been filed). 14 No. 80429-4-I/15 III. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Washington Independent Telephone Ass'n v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission
green
1 sentence2021Comm’n, 149 Wn.2d 17, 24 , 65 P.3d 319 (2003)). 8 No. 81236-0-I/9 evaluating an alleged procedural due process violation, we weigh “(1) the private interest impacted by the government action; (2) ‘the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards,’ and (3) the government interest, including the additional burden that added procedural safeguards would entail.”32 Here, the first Mathews factor favors Ren because he has a fundamental interest in parenting his daughters.33 The third M | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stout
green
1 sentence2021Ed. 2d 18 (1976), to show due process requires opening and closing arguments. 2 No. 54373-7-II flexible concept.” In re Det. of Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357, 370 , 150 P.3d 86 (2007). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Dependency of KSC
green
1 sentence2021In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918, 931 , 976 P.2d 113 (1999) (Washington’s termination statutes do not require a court to consider dependency guardianship as an alternative to termination where no petition has been filed). 14 No. 80429-4-I/15 III. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Washington Independent Telephone Association v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
neutral
1 sentence2021Comm’n, 149 Wn.2d 17, 24 , 65 P.3d 319 (2003)). 8 No. 81236-0-I/9 evaluating an alleged procedural due process violation, we weigh “(1) the private interest impacted by the government action; (2) ‘the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards,’ and (3) the government interest, including the additional burden that added procedural safeguards would entail.”32 Here, the first Mathews factor favors Ren because he has a fundamental interest in parenting his daughters.33 The third M | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Detention of Stout
green
1 sentence2021Ed. 2d 18 (1976), to show due process requires opening and closing arguments. 2 No. 54373-7-II flexible concept.” In re Det. of Stout, 159 Wn.2d 357, 370 , 150 P.3d 86 (2007). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re the Welfare of R.H.
green
2 sentences2021App. at 673 (to show a procedural due process violation from denial of a continuance, a parent must demonstrate specific prejudice or that the outcome of trial would have been different) (citing In re Welfare of R.H., 176 Wn. 2021App. 419, 425 , 309 P.3d 620 (2013)). 10 No. 81236-0-I/11 witnesses on both sides whose “live testimony” would not be beneficial to the case.38 And when Ren’s counsel told the court that he was unavailable for one of the scheduled trial days because he was moving, the trial court accommodated his schedule. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In Re Boot green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Cornejo green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Islam v. STATE, DEPT. OF EARLY LEARNING green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Smith v. State neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Islam v. Department of Early Learning green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Greenhalgh v. Department of Corrections neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Price neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Johnson v. Department of Fish & Wildlife neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Kelley v. Pierce County green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. McCuistion neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| City of Redmond v. Moore green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| City of Redmond v. Moore green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Storhoff green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Hovrud green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Burien Bark Supply v. King County green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Withrow v. Larkin green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Wong v. Regents of University of California green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.