In Re the Personal Restraint of Haverty

How courts have described this case

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

• holding \good cause\ showing under RAP 16.4(d) was not required where petition included new issues
• holding that a court will not consider a collateral attack to a conviction if it (1) presents the same grounds as those from a previous collateral attack, and the prior court determined those issues adversely to the petitioner, (2
• holding “good cause” showing under RAP 16.4(d) was not required where petition included new issues
• holding that a court will not consider a collateral attack to a conviction if it (1) presents the same grounds as those from a previous collateral attack, and the prior court determined those issues adversely to the petitioner, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3
• precluding a petitioner from raising the same grounds for review as those raised in prior adjudications
• following definition of “ ‘similar relief’ ” in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S. Ct. 1068, 10 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1963), successive petition could be dismissed under RAP 16.4(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).