Washington Supreme Court· 6/5/1997

State v. Williams

Citations

937 P.2d 1052

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the Department of Social and Health Services, which had determined in a dependency proceeding that Williams had not intentionally received overpayments, was in privity with the county prosecutor of the welfare fraud crime because both “represent the State.”
holding that the Department of Social and Health Services, which had determined in a dependency proceeding that Williams had not intentionally received overpayments, was in privity with the county prosecutor of the welfare fraud crime because both \represent the State.\
rejecting for public policy reasons application of collateral estoppel in a criminal proceeding regarding a prior Department of Social and Health Services determination
finding reversible error where the trial court refused a duress instruction because it judged the harm to the defendant was not immediate
rejecting for public policy reasons application of collateral estoppel in a criminal proceeding regarding a prior Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) determination
finding reversible error where the trial court refused a duress instruction because it judged the harm to the defendant was not immediate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Durham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.