Washington Supreme Court· 10/10/2002
State v. Moreno
Citations
- 147 Wash. 2d 500
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \The doctrine of separation of powers comes from the constitutional distribution of the government's authority into three branches.\
- “The doctrine of separation of powers comes from the constitutional distribution of the government’s authority into three branches.”
- statute permitting judges to call and question witnesses in traffic infraction proceedings
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Johnson, Owens
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. GreshamWashington Supreme Court· 2012-01-05· cited 378×
- Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court· 2004-05-14· cited 228×
- Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, PSWashington Supreme Court· 2009-09-17· cited 101×
- State v. MorenoWashington Supreme Court· 2002-10-10· cited 61×
- State v. RiceWashington Supreme Court· 2012-06-28· cited 61×
- City of Fircrest v. JensenWashington Supreme Court· 2006-10-05· cited 59×
- Waples v. YiWashington Supreme Court· 2010-07-01· cited 41×
- State v. ChavezWashington Supreme Court· 2008-03-20· cited 38×
- State Of Washington v. Hailu Dagnew MandeferoCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2020-10-12· cited 30×
- State v. KeendCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2007-09-18· cited 27×
- State v. RamosCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2009-03-10· cited 24×
- State v. BrammeCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2003-02-25· cited 22×
- In Re SwensonCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2010-12-06· cited 20×
- In re the Personal Restraint of SwensonCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2010-12-06· cited 20×
- State v. MannCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2008-08-07· cited 13×
- State v. SchernerCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2009-12-21· cited 13×
- State v. ChavezCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2006-08-22· cited 12×
- State v. DiLuzioCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2004-05-27· cited 12×
- Fox v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICESCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2007-05-01· cited 11×
- State v. GronnertCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2004-07-06· cited 11×
Cites
24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court· 1927-03-14· cited 2,714×
- In Re Murchison.Supreme Court· 1955-05-16· cited 2,510×
- Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1989-01-18· cited 2,457×
- Withrow v. LarkinSupreme Court· 1975-04-16· cited 2,322×
- Offutt v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1954-11-08· cited 1,331×
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorSupreme Court· 1986-07-07· cited 991×
- Morrison v. OlsonSupreme Court· 1988-06-29· cited 888×
- Ward v. Village of MonroevilleSupreme Court· 1972-11-14· cited 834×
- Thompson v. City of LouisvilleSupreme Court· 1960-03-21· cited 801×
- Ardestani v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court· 1991-12-10· cited 656×
- Wong Yang Sung v. McGrathSupreme Court· 1950-03-13· cited 636×
- People v. MartinezSupreme Court of Colorado· 1974-06-10· cited 497×
- Carrick v. LockeWashington Supreme Court· 1994-10-13· cited 139×
- Zylstra v. PivaWashington Supreme Court· 1975-08-28· cited 107×
- State ex rel. Barnard v. Board of EducationWashington Supreme Court· 1898-02-23· cited 89×
- People v. CarlucciCalifornia Supreme Court· 1979-02-07· cited 81×
- Gregorio Figueroa Ruiz v. Gerardo Delgado, WardenFirst Circuit· 1966-04-28· cited 37×
- State v. AvenaNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1995-04-21· cited 36×
- City of Bremerton v. SpearsWashington Supreme Court· 1998-01-08· cited 32×
- People v. CofieldAppellate Court of Illinois· 1973-01-30· cited 32×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.