City of Seattle v. Patu

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the invited error doctrine prevents party from setting up an error at trial and then complaining of it on appeal
• concluding the invited error doctrine barred review where the ordinance on which the defendant based his instruction was later held unconstitutional
• holding that a party cannot either intentionally or accidentally set up an error and then “‘complain[] of it on appeal’” (quoting State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507, 511, 680 P.2d 762 (1984), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 319, 893 P.2d 629 (1995))
• holding that a party cannot either intentionally or accidentally set up an error and then “‘complain[] of it on appeal’” (quoting State v. Pam, 101 Wn.2d 507, 511, 680 P.2d 762 (1984), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 319, 893 P.2d 629 (1995))
• interpreting Studd’s holding to be that “those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error” (emphasis added)
• interpreting Studd's holding to be that \those defendants who had proposed the erroneous instruction without attempting to add a remedial instruction had invited the error\ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).