Case Citator › State v. Pam

State v. Pam

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
680 P.2d 762
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
47 of 47
Citing cases (total)
47
Treatment dates
1995
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Pam was overruled in part by State v. Olson, as listed below. Olson rejected a rigid reading under which a minor assignment-of-error defect necessarily bars appellate review, while preserving Pam's rule where the appellant also fails to argue or support the issue.
More on how this was screened

State v. Cruz later reaffirmed that narrower rule. All 47 flagged citations have been read.

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.

47 later cases cite State v. Pam; 47 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. Pam?

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 Supreme Court of Washington rejected a reading of Pam that would bar review solely because an assignment of error was technically defective, while retaining Pam's rule when the appellant also fails to argue or support the issue.

    State v. Olson · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    State v. Pam, supra, relied on Fortun and supports the more narrow reading of that case. ... Thus, none of the cases relied on by Mr. Olson are as broad as he suggests. Instead, they stand only for the proposition that when an appellant fails to raise an issue in the assignments of error, in violation of RAP 10.3(a)(3), and fails to present any argument on the issue or provide any legal citation, an appellate court will not consider the merits of that issue. To the extent, however, that Fortun and its progeny may conflict with our holding today, they are overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Pam 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