State v. Taplin

How courts have described this case

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

• \The parties' ability to argue two interpretations of a statute does not necessarily render the statute ambiguous.\
• “The parties’ ability to argue two interpretations of a statute does not necessarily render the statute ambiguous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. McDougal
  Washington Supreme Court· 1992-12-10· cited 82×
• Wingert v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc.
  Washington Supreme Court· 2002-07-18· cited 69×
• State v. Phelps
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2003-10-14· cited 10×
• State v. Cowin
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2003-03-11· cited 6×
• State v. Evans
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2011-11-01· cited 5×
• State v. Cowin
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2003-04-29· cited 3×
• State v. Hughes
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1993-05-27· cited 3×
• State v. Mahone
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2011-09-27· cited 1×
• State v. Hughes
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1991-11-19· cited 1×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State Ex Rel. McDonald v. Whatcom County District Court
  Washington Supreme Court· 1979-07-12· cited 57×
• State v. Hutchinson
  Washington Supreme Court· 1989-01-13· cited 53×
• Armstrong v. Safeco Insurance
  Washington Supreme Court· 1988-12-15· cited 13×