State v. Glover

How courts have described this case

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

• “In the wake of Blazina, appellate courts have heeded its message and regularly exercise their discretion to reach the merits of unpreserved LFO arguments.”
• “In the wake of Blazina, appellate courts have heeded its message and regularly exercise their discretion to reach the merits of unpreserved LFO arguments.”
• We “regularly exercise [our] discretion to reach the merits of unpreserved LFO arguments.”
• trial court’s inquiry, which was limited to employability, was inadequate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• State Of Washington, V. Antonio Ortega
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2022-03-29· cited 4×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Blazina
  Washington Supreme Court· 2015-03-12· cited 560×
• State v. Brightman
  Washington Supreme Court· 2005-10-06· cited 233×
• State of Washington v. Joshua James Clark
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-11-19· cited 101×
• State v. Mathers
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2016-05-10· cited 88×
• State v. Ford
  Washington Supreme Court· 1995-03-16· cited 39×
• State v. Garza
  Washington Supreme Court· 2003-10-09· cited 36×
• State Of Washington v. Manuel Gonzales
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2017-03-14· cited 24×
• State of Washington v. Ronald Aaron Malone
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2016-05-05· cited 18×
• In re H.A.R.
  Washington Supreme Court· 2018-03-07· cited 1×