Case Citator › In re Personal Restraint of Andress

In re Personal Restraint of Andress

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

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
56 P.3d 981
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
2008
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. In re Personal Restraint of Andress was superseded by a later amendment to Washington's second degree felony murder statute. All 42 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below: the amended statute expressly permits assault as a predicate felony, which Andress held the former statute did not permit. This does not erase Andress's application to convictions governed by the former statute.

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.

42 later cases cite In re Personal Restraint of Andress; 42 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 In re Personal Restraint of Andress?

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Superseded by statute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 court held that the amended felony murder statute expressly includes assault as a predicate offense, so Andress's reading of the former statute did not help the defendant under the amended law.

    State v. Armstrong · Washington Court of Appeals, Division One · filed

    Second, the legislature expressly rejected the Andress court's legislative intent analysis, subsequently amending the felony murder statute to expressly include assault as a predicate offense to felony murder.[36] The Andress opinion, then, represents nothing more than the supreme court's then view that assault should not qualify as a predicate felony for felony murder. Given the legislature's rejection of the supreme court's view, we see nothing in the analysis in Andress to assist us in the case now before us.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Personal Restraint of Andress 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