KELLY GARRICK v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he charges were not concise. As [Washam] devotes no substantial argument to the claim, we do not reach it.”
• “ ‘[w]e do not consider claims insufficiently argued by the parties’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 n.1, 973 P.2d 452 (1999))
• \'[w]e do not consider claims insufficiently argued by the parties\' (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 n.1, 973 P.2d 452 (1999))
• \'[w]e do not consider claims insufficiently argued by the parties\' (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ford, 137 Wn.2d 472, 477 n.1, 973 P.2d 452 (1999))
• “ ‘[w]e do not consider claims insufficiently argued by the parties’’’ (alteration in original
• \'[w]e do not consider claims insufficiently argued by the parties\' (alteration in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).