Case Citator › State v. O'Hara

State v. O'Hara

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
217 P.3d 756
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
60 of 60
Citing cases (total)
60
Treatment dates
2018
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. State v. O'Hara has been criticized. All 60 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

State v. Hubbart criticized its description of manifest error as requiring actual prejudice, but continued to apply that requirement. That confirmed criticism 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.

60 later cases cite State v. O'Hara; 60 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. O'Hara?

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

Criticized

  • The court criticized O’Hara’s actual-prejudice formulation of manifest error as perhaps perverting the term “manifest,” while applying that formulation to decline review of Hubbart’s unpreserved claim.

    State of Washington v. Hubbart · Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three · filed

    Washington courts and even decisions internally have announced differing formulations for “manifest error.” First, a manifest error is one “truly of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 688. Second, perhaps perverting the term “manifest,” some decisions emphasize prejudice, not obviousness. The defendant must identify a constitutional error and show how, in the context of the trial, the alleged error actually affected the defendant’s rights. It is this showing of actual prejudice that makes the error “manifest,” allowing appellate review. State v. O’Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99, 217 P.3d 756 (2009); State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d at 688.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. O'Hara 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