manifest abuse of discretion standard in Washington

2016Under a manifest abuse of discretion standard, “[t]he trial court’s decision will be affirmed unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion.” In re Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809-10 , 699 P.2d 214 (1985). ¶22 The juvenile court “takes into account a number of factors, including diligence, due process, the need for an orderly procedure, the possible effect on the trial, and whether prior continuances were granted.” V.R.R., 134 Wn.

2016Under a manifest abuse of discretion standard, “[t]he trial court’s decision will be affirmed unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion.” In re Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809-10 , 699 P.2d 214 (1985). ¶22 The juvenile court “takes into account a number of factors, including diligence, due process, the need for an orderly procedure, the possible effect on the trial, and whether prior continuances were granted.” V.R.R., 134 Wn.

2025Applying a manifest abuse of discretion standard, we give a great deal of deference to the trial court’s “evaluation of relevance under ER 401 and its balancing of probative value against its prejudicial effect or potential to mislead under ER 403.” State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-07 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995).

2024State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-07 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995).

2025Applying a manifest abuse of discretion standard, we give a great deal of deference to the trial court’s “evaluation of relevance under ER 401 and its balancing of probative value against its prejudicial effect or potential to mislead under ER 403.” State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-07 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995).

2024State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-07 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995).

2018State v. White, 74 Wn.2d 386, 395 , 444 P.2d 661 (1968).

2018State v. White, 74 Wn.2d 386, 395 , 444 P.2d 661 (1968).

2014Therefore, when reviewing the court's decision to grant or deny leave to amend, we apply a manifest abuse of discretion test. id.

2010Id.

2019“A trial court’s decision to dismiss charges is reviewable under the manifest abuse of discretion standard.” Puapuaga, 164 Wn.2d at 520-21 .

2019"A trial court's decision to dismiss charges is reviewable under the manifest abuse of discretion standard." Puapuacia, 164 Wn.2d at 520-21 .

2016Under a manifest abuse of discretion standard, “[t]he trial court’s decision will be affirmed unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion.” In re Marriage of Landry, 103 Wn.2d 807, 809-10 , 699 P.2d 214 (1985). ¶22 The juvenile court “takes into account a number of factors, including diligence, due process, the need for an orderly procedure, the possible effect on the trial, and whether prior continuances were granted.” V.R.R., 134 Wn.

2016The juvenile court “takes into account a number of factors, including diligence, due process, the need for an orderly procedure, the possible effect on the trial, and whether prior continuances were granted.” V.R.R., 134 Wn.

2014Urbana, 147 Wn.

2014Urbana, 147 Wn.

2005Brewer, 137 Wn.2d at 769 .

2005Brewer, 137 Wash.2d at 769 , 976 P.2d 102 .

2004In re Dependency of E.S., 92 Wn.

2004In re Dependency of E.S., 92 Wash. App. at 769 , 964 P.2d 404 ; Coggle, 56 Wash.App. at 504 , 784 P.2d 554 .

2001State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822, 830 , 845 P.2d 1017 (1993).

2001State v. Blackwell, 120 Wn.2d 822, 830 , 845 P.2d 1017 (1993).

1999Caruso, 100 Wash.2d at 351 , 670 P.2d 240 .

1999Caruso, 100 Wn.2d at 351 .

2025Abuse exists when the trial court’s exercise of discretion is “manifestly unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds or reasons.” Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 619 .

2024“Under a manifest abuse of discretion standard, ‘[t]he trial court’s decision will be affirmed unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same conclusion.’ ” The Parental 5 No. 84786-4-I/6 Rights to E.D., 195 Wn.

2023State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-7 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995). “‘A court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 799 (quoting State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 283-84 , 165 P.3d 1251 (2007)).

2023State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-7 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995). “‘A court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 799 (quoting State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 283-84 , 165 P.3d 1251 (2007)).

2023State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690, 706-7 , 903 P.2d 960 (1995). “‘A court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.’” Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 799 (quoting State v. Lord, 161 Wn.2d 276, 283-84 , 165 P.3d 1251 (2007)).

2018State v. Michielli, 132 Wn.2d 229, 240 , 937 P.2d 587 (1997).

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW Appellate courts use a manifest abuse of discretion standard to review a parenting plan.2 Similarly, appellate courts use an abuse of discretion standard to review the grant or denial of a motion for reconsideration.3 A court abuses its discretion when it makes factual findings that the record does not support or uses untenable reasoning to make legal conclusions.4 We review the record to see if substantial evidence supports challenged findings of fact.5 We do not reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations or weigh 2 In re Marriage of Black, 188 Wn.2d 114 , 127, 39

2016State v. Moen, 150 Wn.2d 221, 226 , 76 P.3d 721 (2003).

2016State v. Moen, 150 Wn.2d 221, 226 , 76 P.3d 721 (2003).

2016App. at 581 . “[T]erminations are fact specific and must be decided on a case by case basis.” In re Welfare of N.M., 184 Wn.

2014When determining whether to grant a continuance, the juvenile court must consider “ ‘diligence, due process, the need for an orderly procedure, the possible effect on the trial, and whether prior continuances were granted.’ ” R.H., 176 Wn.

2013State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 838 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991).

2013State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831, 838 , 809 P.2d 190 (1991).

2013Shipyards Corp.. 127 Wn.