door inquiry (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

door inquiry in Washington

6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2016 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Vladovicgreen
wash · 1983 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014In addition to making a merger argument, the petitioner in Vladovic brought a separate sufficiency challenge, alleging that his kidnapping charge could not stand because “the acts did not bear the indicia of a true kidnapping.” Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d at 424 (alluding to language from Green II).

2014In 12 No. 89570-8 addition to making a merger argument, the petitioner in Vladovic brought a separate sufficiency challenge, alleging that his kidnapping charge could not stand because "the acts did not bear the indicia of a true kidnapping." Vladovic, 99 Wn.2d at 424 (alluding to language from Green II).

22

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Gefeller green
wash · 1969
1 sentence

2016Gefeller, 76 Wn.2d at 455 .

12016–2016
Blair v. TA-Seattle East No. 176 green
wash · 2011
1 sentence

2012Thus, Judge González’s decision to grant the Teters a new trial was not an abuse of discretion. ¶26 Dr. Deck argues that even if Judge Washington’s order contained technical errors, the correct remedy is a remand to Judge Washington to make the Burnet findings. *221 10 We rejected a similar argument in Blair. 171 Wn.2d at 352 n.6 (allowing the trial court to make after-the-fact findings to support its exclusion orders “would be inappropriate”).

12012–2012
Sanders v. State green
ind · 1882
1 sentence

1924The situation here in question is quite unlike that involved in the famous cases of Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318 , 44 Am.

11924–1924
Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co. green
pa · 1908
2 sentences

1914Co., 221 Pa. 626 , 70 Atl. 884, 885 .

1914Co., 221 Pa. 626 , 70 Atl. 884, 885 .

11914–1914

Where else courts name it

NY 25 (1903–2024) NJ 24 (1953–2026) IL 13 (1930–2025) CA 12 (1920–2021) TX 12 (1945–2021) MD 11 (1946–2021) FL 11 (1990–2025) MI 10 (1912–2021) OH 10 (2005–2025) VA 10 (1990–2024) CT 10 (1977–2017) MS 8 (1978–2016) TN 7 (1944–2026) IN 7 (1970–2011) UT 7 (1983–2017) NC 7 (1989–2026) GA 6 (1979–2014) MT 6 (1984–2017) OK 6 (1926–2007) MO 6 (1900–2025) WA 6 (1914–2016) PA 6 (1937–2015) MA 5 (1940–2015) HI 5 (2019–2021) SD 4 (2002–2017) LA 4 (1939–2015) AZ 4 (1978–2023) WI 4 (1920–2018) CO 4 (1972–2010) ND 3 (2015–2024) IA 3 (1921–2023) AL 3 (1962–2008) WY 3 (1997–1999) MN 3 (1984–2003) KS 3 (1966–2018) DC 3 (1997–2019) OR 2 (1902–2017) AR 2 (1925–1960) NE 2 (1910–2016) NM 2 (1997–2009) WV 2 (1996–2017)

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