Chiappetta v. Bahr

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that where a juror did not have special knowledge, their statement constituted speculation that carried little prejudicial effect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Chiappetta v. Bahr
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-05-07· cited 1×
• Chiappetta v. Bahr
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-02-05

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Ng
  Washington Supreme Court· 1988-02-18· cited 225×
• Adkins v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AM.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1988-06-09· cited 148×
• Ayers v. Johnson & Johnson Baby Products Co.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1992-01-10· cited 126×
• Gardner v. Malone
  Washington Supreme Court· 1962-11-29· cited 114×
• State v. Balisok
  Washington Supreme Court· 1994-01-13· cited 85×
• Richards v. Overlake Hospital Medical Center
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1990-09-17· cited 71×
• Cumbie v. Cumbie
  Washington Supreme Court· 1963-03-21· cited 58×
• State v. Hall
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1985-04-01· cited 16×
• Johnson v. Carbon
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1991-09-24· cited 11×

Other cases named Chiappetta v. Bahr

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Chiappetta v. Bahr
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-05-07· cited 1×
• Chiappetta v. Bahr
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-02-05