Case Citator › State v. Thorn

State v. Thorn

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
917 P.2d 108
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
48 of 48
Citing cases (total)
48
Treatment dates
2003
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Thorn was overruled in part on appellate review of findings from a suppression hearing. The Washington Supreme Court held in State v. O'Neill that supported findings bind an appellate court and unchallenged findings are accepted as true.
More on how this was screened

Thorn's seizure analysis continues to be cited. All 48 flagged citations have been read; the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

48 later cases cite State v. Thorn; 48 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Thorn?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Washington Supreme Court overruled Thorn to the extent it conflicted with the rule that supported suppression findings bind on appeal and unchallenged findings are accepted as true.

    State v. O'Neill · Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc · filed

    The rule in Washington is that challenged findings entered after a suppression hearing that are supported by substantial evidence are binding, and, where the findings are unchallenged, they are verities on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Hill, 123 Wash.2d 641, 647, 870 P.2d 313 (1994); State v. Horrace, 144 Wash.2d 386, 391-92, 28 P.3d 753 (2001); State v. Ross, 141 Wash.2d 304, 309, 4 P.3d 130 (2000); State v. Kinzy, 141 Wash.2d 373, 382 n. 19, 5 P.3d 668 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1104, 121 S.Ct. 843, 148 L.Ed.2d 723 (2001); State v. Finch, 137 Wash.2d 792, 856, 975 P.2d 967 (1999); State v. Mendez, 137 Wash.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999); State v. Armenta, 134 Wash.2d 1, 9, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997); State v. Broadaway, 133 Wash.2d 118, 130, 942 P.2d 363 (1997). Decisions to the contrary are overruled insofar as they are inconsistent. E.g., State v. Thorn, 129 Wash.2d 347, 351, 917 P.2d 108 (1996); State v. Crane, 105 Wash.App. 301, 306, 19 P.3d 1100 (2001); State v. Knox, 86 Wash.App. 831, 838, 939 P.2d 710 (1997).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Thorn and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace