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 1935–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Hogangreen2 sentences1950See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen etc. v. Hogan, 5 F. Supp. 598 , which contains *587 an exhaustive analysis of cases on the subject; also, In re Sheard’s Estate, 181 Wash. 62 , 42 P. (2d) 34 . 1935See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen etc. v. Hogan, 5 F. Supp. 598 , which contains an exhaustive analysis of cases on the subject; also, In re Sheard’s Estate, 181 Wash. 62 , 42 P. (2d) 34 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hannagreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Hanna, 123 Wn.2d 704 . ¶31 A similar exhaustive analysis of Crawford’s retroactivity was performed by New York State trial court judge Marcy L. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eastmangreen2 sentences2005Justice Kahn ultimately held: As noted, the Supreme Court held in Crawford itself, and the New York Court of Appeals has held in Eastman, that the right to confront witnesses is a "bedrock rule" of criminal procedure. ( Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. at 1359; People v. Eastman, 85 N.Y.2d 265, 275 [, 648 N.E.2d 459 , 624 N.Y.S.2d 83 ] (1995)). 2005Justice Kahn ultimately held: As noted, the Supreme Court held in Crawford itself, and the New York Court of Appeals has held in Eastman, that the right to confront witnesses is a "bedrock rule" of criminal procedure. ( Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. at 1359; People v. Eastman, 85 N.Y.2d 265, 275 [, 648 N.E.2d 459 , 624 N.Y.S.2d 83 ] (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles Langfordgreen2 sentences1988See United States v. Langford, supra at 1181-84 (Ferguson, J., dissenting). 1988See United States v. Langford, supra at 1181-84 (Ferguson, J., dissenting). | 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 Sheard's Estate
neutral
2 sentences1950See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen etc. v. Hogan, 5 F. Supp. 598 , which contains *587 an exhaustive analysis of cases on the subject; also, In re Sheard’s Estate, 181 Wash. 62 , 42 P. (2d) 34 . 1950See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen etc. v. Hogan, 5 F. Supp. 598 , which contains *587 an exhaustive analysis of cases on the subject; also, In re Sheard’s Estate, 181 Wash. 62 , 42 P. (2d) 34 . | 2 | 1935–1950 |
State v. Morin
green
1 sentence2023Morin, 100 Wn. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hanna v. Riveland
green
1 sentence2005Hanna v. Riveland, 87 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.1996). ¶ 31 A similar exhaustive analysis of Crawford's retroactivity was performed by New York State trial court judge Marcy L. Kahn. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.