Case Citator › State v. McFarland

State v. McFarland

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
899 P.2d 1251
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
87 of 87
Citing cases (total)
87
Treatment dates
2011
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. State v. McFarland remains authoritative, subject to a narrow exception for a retroactive change in controlling constitutional law. All 87 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Washington Supreme Court created that exception in State v. Robinson, 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.

87 later cases cite State v. McFarland; 87 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. McFarland?

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

Limited

  • The court exempted appeals from McFarland's usual issue preservation rule when a new controlling constitutional interpretation applies retroactively to a trial completed before the change.

    State v. Robinson · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    The general rule in Washington is that a party’s failure to raise an issue at trial waives the issue on appeal unless the party can show the presence of a “ ‘manifest error affecting a constitutional right.’ ” State v. Kirwin, 165 Wn.2d 818, 823, 203 P.3d 1044 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 333, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)). ... We recognize, however, that in a narrow class of cases, insistence on issue preservation would be counterproductive to the goal of judicial efficiency. Accordingly, we hold that principles of issue preservation do not apply where the following four conditions are met: (1) a court issues a new controlling constitutional interpretation material to the defendant’s case, (2) that interpretation overrules an existing controlling interpretation, (3) the new interpretation applies retroactively to the defendant, and (4) the defendant’s trial was completed prior to the new interpretation.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. McFarland 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