6 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Zufeltgreen2 sentences2003See Zufelt, 112 Wash.2d at 914 , 774 P.2d 1223 (a petition failing either the factual or legal sufficiency review is insufficient). 2003See Zufelt, 112 Wn.2d at 914 (a petition failing either the factual or legal sufficiency review is insufficient). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Recall of Wade
green
2 sentences2005THE CHARGE IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT ¶40 The factual sufficiency requirement serves to “ensure that charges, ‘although adequate on their face, do not constitute grounds for recall unless supported by identifiable facts.’ ” In re Recall of Wade, 115 Wn.2d 544, 549 , 799 P.2d 1179 (1990) (quoting Teaford v. Howard, 104 Wn.2d 580, 584 , 707 P.2d 1327 (1985)). 2005THE CHARGE IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT ¶40 The factual sufficiency requirement serves to “ensure that charges, ‘although adequate on their face, do not constitute grounds for recall unless supported by identifiable facts.’ ” In re Recall of Wade, 115 Wn.2d 544, 549 , 799 P.2d 1179 (1990) (quoting Teaford v. Howard, 104 Wn.2d 580, 584 , 707 P.2d 1327 (1985)). | 3 | 1996–2005 |
Teaford v. Howard
green
2 sentences2005THE CHARGE IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT ¶40 The factual sufficiency requirement serves to “ensure that charges, ‘although adequate on their face, do not constitute grounds for recall unless supported by identifiable facts.’ ” In re Recall of Wade, 115 Wn.2d 544, 549 , 799 P.2d 1179 (1990) (quoting Teaford v. Howard, 104 Wn.2d 580, 584 , 707 P.2d 1327 (1985)). 2005THE CHARGE IS FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT ¶40 The factual sufficiency requirement serves to “ensure that charges, ‘although adequate on their face, do not constitute grounds for recall unless supported by identifiable facts.’ ” In re Recall of Wade, 115 Wn.2d 544, 549 , 799 P.2d 1179 (1990) (quoting Teaford v. Howard, 104 Wn.2d 580, 584 , 707 P.2d 1327 (1985)). | 3 | 1996–2005 |
Matter of Pearsall-Stipek
green
2 sentences2000This means that for the factual sufficiency requirement to be satisfied, the petitioner is required to demonstrate "not only that the official intended to commit the act, but also that the official intended to act unlawfully." Id. at 263, 961 P.2d 343 . 2000Additionally, "[o]fficials may not be recalled for their discretionary acts absent manifest abuse of discretion." Id. at 264, 961 P.2d 343 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jenkins v. Stables
green
2 sentences1996This court has thoroughly explained the requirement of factual sufficiency in recent decisions: "The charges must be made with 'sufficient precision and detail to enable the electorate and the challenged official to make informed decisions in the recall process.’ Jenkins v. Stables, 110 Wn.2d 305, 307 , 751 P.2d 1187 (1988). 1996This court has thoroughly explained the requirement of factual sufficiency in recent decisions: "The charges must be made with 'sufficient precision and detail to enable the electorate and the challenged official to make informed decisions in the recall process.’ Jenkins v. Stables, 110 Wn.2d 305, 307 , 751 P.2d 1187 (1988). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.