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 1 courts 2008–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fry
green
2 sentences2014In State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1 , 228 P.3d 1 (2010), a plurality of our Supreme Court held the medical use affirmative defense did not vitiate probable cause supporting a search warrant. 2014In State v. Fry, 168 Wn.2d 1 , 228 R3d 1 (2010), a plurality of our Supreme Court held the medical use affirmative defense did not vitiate probable cause supporting a search warrant. | 3 | 2014–2014 |
McBride v. Walla Walla County
green
2 sentences2008Citing McBride v. Walla Walla County, 95 Wash.App. 33, 40 , 975 P.2d 1029 , 990 P.2d 967 (1999), the State counters that the medical use affirmative defense does not negate probable cause. 2008App. 33, 40 , 975 P.2d 1029 , 990 P.2d 967 (1999), the State counters that the medical use affirmative defense does not negate probable cause. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Ellis
green
1 sentence2014The court reasoned that the Act created a potential medical use exception to the Controlled Substances Act’s general rule criminalizing marijuana manufacturing and that for probable cause purposes the exception “functions about the same as the old medical use affirmative defense provided in former RCW 69.51A.040(1) (1999).” Id. at 806 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.