enjoyment privilege in Washington

6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2015 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 (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Scheffel green wash · 1973 2 sentences 2015Scheffel, 82 Wn.2d at 880 . ¶38 Furthermore, “[t]he duration of any potentially wrongful deprivation of a property interest is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the private interest involved.” Mackey, 443 U.S. at 12 . 2015Scheffel, 82 Wn.2d at 880 .	2	2015–2015
Housing Authority v. Saylors green wash · 1976 2 sentences 1999Furthermore, we stated that “[i]t would appear that Const, art. 1, § 12, is less liberal than U.S. Const, amend. 14, if a distinction between the two is to be found in the language used, for it expressly authorizes the legislature to impose terms upon the enjoyment of a privilege.” Housing Auth, 87 Wn.2d at 740 n.3 (emphasis added). 1999Furthermore, we stated that "[i]t would appear that Const. art. 1, § 12, is less liberal than U.S. Const. amend. 14, if a distinction between the two is to be found in the language used, for it expressly authorizes the legislature to impose terms upon the enjoyment of a privilege." Housing Auth., 87 Wash.2d at 740 n. 3, 557 P.2d 321 (emphasis added).	2	1999–1999
MacKey v. Montrym green scotus · 1979 1 sentence 2015Scheffel, 82 Wn.2d at 880 . ¶38 Furthermore, “[t]he duration of any potentially wrongful deprivation of a property interest is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the private interest involved.” Mackey, 443 U.S. at 12 .	1	2015–2015
State v. Stannard green wash · 1987 2 sentences 1992State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29, 36 , 742 P.2d 1244 (1987). 1992State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29, 36 , 742 P.2d 1244 (1987).	1	1992–1992
Boeing Airplane Co. v. Employment Security Department green wash · 1963 2 sentences 1992In re Bale, 63 Wn.2d 83, 86 , 385 P.2d 545 (1963). 1992In re Bale, 63 Wn.2d 83, 86 , 385 P.2d 545 (1963).	1	1992–1992
Iverson v. Marine Bancorporation green wash · 1976 2 sentences 1976Iverson v. Marine Bancorporation, 86 Wn.2d 562 , 546 P.2d 454 (1976). [3] It would appear that Const. art. 1, § 12, is less liberal than U.S. Const. amend. 14, if a distinction between the two is to be found in the language used, for it expressly authorizes the legislature to impose terms upon the enjoyment of a privilege. [4] It is worthy of note that the California courts, whose practice this court regarded as persuasive in O'Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589 , 458 P.2d 154 (1969), waive only the filing fees on civil appeals, according to advice received from the California Judicial Council. 1976Iverson v. Marine Bancorporation, 86 Wn.2d 562 , 546 P.2d 454 (1976). [3] It would appear that Const. art. 1, § 12, is less liberal than U.S. Const. amend. 14, if a distinction between the two is to be found in the language used, for it expressly authorizes the legislature to impose terms upon the enjoyment of a privilege. [4] It is worthy of note that the California courts, whose practice this court regarded as persuasive in O'Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589 , 458 P.2d 154 (1969), waive only the filing fees on civil appeals, according to advice received from the California Judicial Council.	1	1976–1976
O'CONNOR v. Matzdorff green wash · 1969 2 sentences 1976Iverson v. Marine Bancorporation, 86 Wn.2d 562 , 546 P.2d 454 (1976). [3] It would appear that Const. art. 1, § 12, is less liberal than U.S. Const. amend. 14, if a distinction between the two is to be found in the language used, for it expressly authorizes the legislature to impose terms upon the enjoyment of a privilege. [4] It is worthy of note that the California courts, whose practice this court regarded as persuasive in O'Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589 , 458 P.2d 154 (1969), waive only the filing fees on civil appeals, according to advice received from the California Judicial Council. 1976Iverson v. Marine Bancorporation, 86 Wn.2d 562 , 546 P.2d 454 (1976). [3] It would appear that Const. art. 1, § 12, is less liberal than U.S. Const. amend. 14, if a distinction between the two is to be found in the language used, for it expressly authorizes the legislature to impose terms upon the enjoyment of a privilege. [4] It is worthy of note that the California courts, whose practice this court regarded as persuasive in O'Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589 , 458 P.2d 154 (1969), waive only the filing fees on civil appeals, according to advice received from the California Judicial Council.	1	1976–1976

Where else courts name it

MD 14 (1925–2024) IN 10 (1904–2008) MI 10 (1921–2014) GA 8 (1910–2025) OH 8 (1904–2025) NY 6 (1857–1958) WA 6 (1976–2015) NM 5 (1938–2015) MA 4 (1932–1995) CO 4 (1983–1998) PA 4 (1936–1977) KS 4 (1973–2017) OK 4 (1945–2003) MO 3 (1933–2018) CA 3 (1902–1953) LA 3 (1938–2018) ME 2 (1957–1985) MN 2 (2013–2014) IA 2 (1942–2002) SD 2 (1944–1959) OR 2 (1901–1992) AR 2 (1915–1956) MT 2 (1964–1979) TN 2 (1923–2020) NC 2 (1915–1939) VA 2 (1880–1881) KY 2 (1927–1971)

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