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 1996–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Personal Restraint of Reismillergreen2 sentences2003An inmate is entitled to relief from the restraint if he can prove actual and substantial prejudice as a result of constitutional error, or if he can prove nonconstitutional error that inherently results in a "complete miscarriage of justice." In re Cook, 114 Wash.2d 802, 813 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); In re Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d 291, 293 , 678 P.2d 323 (1984). 2003An inmate is entitled to relief from the restraint if he can prove actual and substantial prejudice as a result of constitutional error, or if he can prove nonconstitutional error that inherently results in a "complete miscarriage of justice." In re Cook, 114 Wash.2d 802, 813 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); In re Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d 291, 293 , 678 P.2d 323 (1984). | 2 | 3 |
| 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 Personal Restraint of Cook
green
2 sentences2003An inmate is entitled to relief from the restraint if he can prove actual and substantial prejudice as a result of constitutional error, or if he can prove nonconstitutional error that inherently results in a "complete miscarriage of justice." In re Cook, 114 Wash.2d 802, 813 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); In re Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d 291, 293 , 678 P.2d 323 (1984). 2003An inmate is entitled to relief from the restraint if he can prove actual and substantial prejudice as a result of constitutional error, or if he can prove nonconstitutional error that inherently results in a "complete miscarriage of justice." In re Cook, 114 Wash.2d 802, 813 , 792 P.2d 506 (1990); In re Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d 291, 293 , 678 P.2d 323 (1984). | 5 | 2001–2024 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Burton
green
2 sentences2001See also RAP 16.4(c)(5) (a petitioner's restraint is unlawful if the conditions or manner of the restraint are in violation of the Constitution of the United States or this state, or in violation of the laws of this state). [5] *724 In reviewing prison disciplinary proceedings, this court determines whether the action taken was "so arbitrary and capricious as to deny the petitioner a fundamentally fair proceeding ." Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d at 294 , 678 P.2d 323 ; In re Personal Restraint of Burton, 80 Wash.App. 573, 582 , 910 P.2d 1295 (1996). 2001See also RAP 16.4(c)(5) (a petitioner's restraint is unlawful if the conditions or manner of the restraint are in violation of the Constitution of the United States or this state, or in violation of the laws of this state). [5] *724 In reviewing prison disciplinary proceedings, this court determines whether the action taken was "so arbitrary and capricious as to deny the petitioner a fundamentally fair proceeding ." Reismiller, 101 Wash.2d at 294 , 678 P.2d 323 ; In re Personal Restraint of Burton, 80 Wash.App. 573, 582 , 910 P.2d 1295 (1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |