Court of Appeals of Washington· 12/23/1992

State v. Potter

Citations

842 P.2d 481
68 Wash. App. 134
1992 Wash. App. LEXIS 493

How courts have described this case

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

statements in a case that are unnecessary to decide the case constitute dicta and need not be followed
“Statements in a case that do not relate to an issue before the court and are unnecessary to decide the case constitute obiter dictum, and need not be followed.”
statements in a case that are unnecessary to decide the case constitute dicta and need not be followed
“Statements in a case that do not relate to an issue before the court and are unnecessary to decide the case constitute obiter dictum, and need not be followed.” (emphasis added)
“[statements in a case that do not relate to an issue before the court and are not necessary to decide the case constitute obiter dictum, and need not be followed”
“Statements in a case that do not relate to an issue before the court and are unnecessary to decide the case constitute obiter dictum, and need not be followed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Seinfeld

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.