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.
6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2005 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. Vasquezgreen2 sentences2005Giving the department discretion to postpone the hearing date in circumstances not identified in the statute would mean not only rewriting the statute, but also it would undermine the statutory intent that the administrative license suspension hearing be adjudicated “in a short span of time.” State v. Vasquez, 148 Wn.2d 303, 316 , 59 P.3d 648 (2002). 2005Giving the Department discretion to postpone the hearing date in circumstances not identified in the statute would not only mean rewriting the statute, but also it would undermine the statutory intent that the administrative license suspension hearing be adjudicated in "in a short span of time." State v. Vasquez, 148 Wash.2d 303, 316 , 59 P.3d 648 (2002). | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vasquez
green
2 sentences2005Giving the department discretion to postpone the hearing date in circumstances not identified in the statute would mean not only rewriting the statute, but also it would undermine the statutory intent that the administrative license suspension hearing be adjudicated “in a short span of time.” State v. Vasquez, 148 Wn.2d 303, 316 , 59 P.3d 648 (2002). 2005Giving the Department discretion to postpone the hearing date in circumstances not identified in the statute would not only mean rewriting the statute, but also it would undermine the statutory intent that the administrative license suspension hearing be adjudicated in "in a short span of time." State v. Vasquez, 148 Wash.2d 303, 316 , 59 P.3d 648 (2002). | 3 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Dupard
green
2 sentences2002In Dupard , we held that the State is not collaterally estopped in a criminal case from relitigating an issue previously decided in favor of the defendant at a parole revocation hearing. 93 Wash.2d at 269 , 609 P.2d 961 . 2002In Dupard , we held that the State is not collaterally estopped in a criminal case from relitigating an issue previously decided in favor of the defendant at a parole revocation hearing. 93 Wn.2d at 270 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
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.