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 1995–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kent v. United States
green
2 sentences2014Like Mr. Saenz, Mr. Bailey had never been in adult court and there is no evidence he understood the “ ‘vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile.’ ” Saenz, 175 Wn.2d at 174 (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 556 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 , 16 L. 2014Like Mr. Saenz, Mr. Bailey had never been in adult court and there is no evidence he understood the “ ‘vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile.’ ” Saenz, 175 Wn.2d at 174 (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 556 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 , 16 L. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Saenz
green
2 sentences2014Like Mr. Saenz, Mr. Bailey had never been in adult court and there is no evidence he understood the “ ‘vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile.’ ” Saenz, 175 Wn.2d at 174 (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 556 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 , 16 L. 2014Like Mr. Saenz, Mr. Bailey had never been in adult court and there is no evidence he understood the'" vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile.'" Saenz, 175 Wn.2d at 174 (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 556 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 , 16 L. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Dearbone
green
2 sentences1995In contrast to Dearbone , here evidence "in the record suggests defense counsel induced the prosecutor not to serve the notice", Dearbone, 125 Wash.2d at 183 , 883 P.2d 303 , with the inducement including a verbal agreement on the record. 1995In contrast to Dearbone , here evidence "in the record suggests defense counsel induced the prosecutor not to serve the notice,” Dearbone, 125 Wn.2d at 183 , with the inducement including a verbal agreement on the record. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Kone
green
1 sentence2020Law also asserts that he “was prejudiced because he was forced to choose between having prepared counsel and proceeding with a speedy trial.” CrR 3.3(h) provides, “No case shall be dismissed for time-to-trial reasons except as expressly required by this rule, a statute, or the state or federal constitution.” This court has previously held that “[t}he plain and unambiguous language of CrR 3.3 prohibits dismissal of a case under CrR 8.3(b) for violation of a defendant’s time-for-trial rights under CrR 3.3 unless a defendant can show a violation of CrR 3.3, a statute, or the state or federal cons | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.
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.