Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.36

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.36.140

Duty of courts when federal question is raised

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In the consideration of any petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the supreme court or the court of appeals, whether in an original proceeding or upon an appeal, if any federal question shall be presented by the pleadings, it shall be the duty of the supreme court to determine in its opinion whether or not the petitioner has been denied a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
[ 1971 c 81 s 32; 1947 c 256 s 2; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 1085-2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: In Re the Personal Restraint of James
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Personal Restraint of James (1982) wash · cites it 2× “In the consideration of any petition for a writ of *854 habeas corpus by the supreme court or the court of appeals, whether in an original proceeding or upon an appeal, if any federal question shall be presented by the pleadings, it shall be the duty of the supreme court to…”
In RE SCRUGGS v. Rhay (1967) wash · cites it 6× “) It would be an abnegation of the constitutional and statutory responsibility of this court to refuse to consider questions raised by petitions for habeas corpus which have not been previously determined.”
In RE McNEAR v. Rhay (1965) wash · cites it 2× “[2] "In the consideration of any petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the supreme court, whether in an original proceeding or upon an appeal, if any federal question shall be presented by the pleadings, it shall be the duty of the supreme court to determine in its opinion…”
Smith v. Whatcom County District Court (2002) wash “Under RCW 7.36.140 this court is required to determine whether or not the petitioner has been denied a right guaranteed by the federal constitution.”
Smith v. Whatcom County Dist. Court (2002) wash “Under RCW 7.36.140 this court is required to determine whether or not the petitioner has been denied a right guaranteed by the federal constitution.”
In RE MASON v. Cranor (1953) wash · cites it 2× “It is my belief that we must consider and decide this question in order to comply with RCW 7.36.140, which enlarges the scope of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding.”
In RE PALMER v. Cranor (1954) wash “Not only does the 1947 amendment enjoin us to consider alleged invasion of constitutional rights, but RCW 7.36.140 provides: “In the consideration of any petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the supreme court, whether in an original proceeding or upon an appeal, if any…”
In RE WESLEY v. Schneckloth (1959) wash “This court — in exceptional circumstances — has received evidence in habeas corpus proceedings supporting collateral attacks on judgments of conviction when the contention has been that due process, guaranteed to the petitioner by the constitution of the state or of the United…”
Woods v. Burton (1972) washctapp “RCW 7.36.140 was amended by Laws of 1971, ch.”
In RE PETTIT v. Rhay (1963) wash “Therefore, we consider the constitutional questions of the right to confrontation and the right to counsel only within the framework of the broader question of whether the admission of the evidence in the superior court as to the testimony given by the prosecuting witness at the…”
Pitts v. Rhay (1964) wash · cites it 2× “rights guaranteed the petitioner by the Constitution of the state of Washington or of the United States have been violated (Italics ours).”
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Wesley v. Schneckloth (1959) wash “This court—in exceptional circumstances—has received evidence in habeas corpus proceedings supporting collateral attacks on judgments of conviction when the contention has been that due process, guaranteed to the petitioner by the constitution of the state or of the United…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.