Case Citator › In re the Personal Restraint of Cross

In re the Personal Restraint of Cross

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
180 Wash. 2d 664
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
72 of 72
Citing cases (total)
211
Treatment dates
2018
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. In re the Personal Restraint of Cross was overruled in part. All 72 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The one confirmed treatment is listed below. State v. Gregory, identified in later opinions' history reports and checked against the treating opinion itself, rejected Cross's approval of Washington's death penalty as administered. Cross's rulings on Miranda, harmless error, ineffective assistance, and cumulative error were outside Gregory's holding and continue to be cited by later courts.

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.

211 later cases cite In re the Personal Restraint of Cross; 72 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 the Personal Restraint of Cross?

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 Washington Supreme Court displaced Cross's ruling rejecting the constitutional challenge to Washington's death penalty as administered.

    State v. Gregory · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    In Cross, we rejected the defendant's argument that "the death penalty in Washington is effectively standardless and that our proportionality review does not properly police the use of the penalty." 156 Wash.2d at 621, 132 P.3d 80 ; In re Pers. Restraint of Cross, 180 Wash.2d 664, 731, 327 P.3d 660 (2014) (rejecting his constitutional claims again). ... It is now apparent that Washington's death penalty is administered in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. Given the evidence before us, we strike down Washington's death penalty as unconstitutional under article I, section 14.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re the Personal Restraint of Cross 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