State v. Howard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that title \AN ACT Relating to the amendment or repeal of statutes superseded by court rule\ was sufficient to meet art. II, § 19 subject requirement
• holding that title “AN ACT Relating to the amendment or repeal of statutes superseded by court rule” was sufficient to meet article II, section 19 subject requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State
  Washington Supreme Court· 2000-10-26· cited 212×
• Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State
  Washington Supreme Court· 2003-06-19· cited 90×
• City of Tacoma v. State
  Washington Supreme Court· 1991-09-12· cited 56×
• Pierce County v. State
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2008-05-28· cited 37×
• State v. Perala
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2006-03-16· cited 18×
• State v. Thomas
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2000-12-21· cited 15×
• Sackett v. Santilli
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2000-06-12· cited 15×
• State v. Howard
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1988-07-07· cited 10×
• State v. A.W.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2014-05-20· cited 9×
• Klickitat County v. State
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1993-11-30· cited 8×
• Amalgamated Transit v. State
  Washington Supreme Court· 2000-11-27· cited 1×
• Citizens for Resp. Wildlife Mgmt. v. State
  Washington Supreme Court· 2003-06-19
• A.w. And State Of Washington, V Dwight Finch
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2014-05-20
• Ago
  Washington Attorney General Reports· 2004-12-23