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 1926–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Department of Ecology v. United States Bureau of Reclamation
green
2 sentences2016Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 118 Wn.2d 761, 767 , 827 P.2d 275 (1992).9 A party seeking a reversal under this standard must show that the discretion was exercised in a manner which was manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. 2016Dep't of Ecology v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 118 Wn.2d 761, 767 , 827 P.2d 275 (1992).9 A party seeking a reversal under this standard must show that the discretion was exercised in a manner which was manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Hudson v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S. Ct. 970 , 67 L. 2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S. Ct. 970 , 67 L. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Eggleston
green
1 sentence2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981)). ¶ 21 In death penalty cases, the double jeopardy clause prevents "retrying a defendant on aggravating factors ..., when a previous jury ha[s] rejected imposition of the death penalty." Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d at 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (emphasis added) (citing Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 446 , 101 S.Ct. 1852 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Eggleston
green
1 sentence2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981)). ¶ 21 In death penalty cases, the double jeopardy clause prevents "retrying a defendant on aggravating factors ..., when a previous jury ha[s] rejected imposition of the death penalty." Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d at 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (emphasis added) (citing Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 446 , 101 S.Ct. 1852 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Guichard v. Smith
green
1 sentence2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981)). ¶ 21 In death penalty cases, the double jeopardy clause prevents "retrying a defendant on aggravating factors ..., when a previous jury ha[s] rejected imposition of the death penalty." Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d at 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (emphasis added) (citing Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 446 , 101 S.Ct. 1852 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Anderson v. Washington
green
1 sentence2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S. Ct. 970 , 67 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bullington v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981)). ¶ 21 In death penalty cases, the double jeopardy clause prevents "retrying a defendant on aggravating factors ..., when a previous jury ha[s] rejected imposition of the death penalty." Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d at 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (emphasis added) (citing Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 446 , 101 S.Ct. 1852 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981)). 2009Id. (citing Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981)). ¶ 21 In death penalty cases, the double jeopardy clause prevents "retrying a defendant on aggravating factors ..., when a previous jury ha[s] rejected imposition of the death penalty." Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d at 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (emphasis added) (citing Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 446 , 101 S.Ct. 1852 , 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Peoples State Bank v. Hickey
green
2 sentences2005For this reason, the conduct must be such that the losing party was prevented from fully and fairly presenting its case or defense." Hickey, 55 Wash.App. at 372 , 777 P.2d 1056 ; see also WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2860 at 312. ¶ 35 The addition of the "opportunist" language to the declaration was critical to the establishment of concealed juror bias, which formed the basis for the reversal of the defense verdict. 2005For this reason, the conduct must be such that the losing party was prevented from fully and fairly presenting its case or defense." Hickey, 55 Wash.App. at 372 , 777 P.2d 1056 ; see also WRIGHT, MILLER, & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2860 at 312. ¶ 35 The addition of the "opportunist" language to the declaration was critical to the establishment of concealed juror bias, which formed the basis for the reversal of the defense verdict. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1926There can be discerned no difference either in language or in necessary effect between the instruction in this case and that in State v. Thompson, 132 Wash. 124 , 231 Pac. 461 , where an instruction on alibi complained of was this: • • “The law recognizes that the defense of an alibi is one easily fabricated, easy to prove and hard to. disprove.” Under the above authority' this instruction was prejudicially erroneous. 1926There can be discerned no difference either in language or in necessary effect between the instruction in this case and that in State v. Thompson, 132 Wash. 124 , 231 Pac. 461 , where an instruction on alibi complained of was this: • • “The law recognizes that the defense of an alibi is one easily fabricated, easy to prove and hard to. disprove.” Under the above authority' this instruction was prejudicially erroneous. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.