Case Citator › State v. Ford

State v. Ford

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
973 P.2d 452
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
29 of 29
Citing cases (total)
29
Treatment dates
2014
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. State v. Ford was superseded by statute on its rule barring the State from adding criminal history evidence on remand after a defendant had objected at the original sentencing. State v. Jones held that the 2008 amendment to RCW 9.94A.530(2) now permits both parties to present relevant criminal history evidence on remand.
More on how this was screened

Ford's due process rule requiring the State to prove prior convictions remains in force, as Jones expressly reaffirmed. The statutory treatment is listed below. All 29 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.

29 later cases cite State v. Ford; 29 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. Ford?

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

Superseded by statute

  • The 2008 amendment to RCW 9.94A.530(2) displaced Ford's rule barring additional criminal history evidence on remand after a defendant's sentencing objection.

    State v. Jones · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    In this case, the trial judge concluded that the “no second chance” rule we announced in State v. Ford1 was based on constitutional principles of due process and therefore the legislature was not free to alter this rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Because the “no second chance” rule was based on judicial economy, not due process, we hold that the legislature was within its authority to alter our rule and that the statutory remand provision controls.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Ford 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