Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
12 opinions for “United States v. Askham”
State v. Askhampublic domain
86 P.3d 1224 (2004) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Leonard Ralph ASKHAM, Appellant. No. 21413-3-III. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel Four. March 30, 2004. *1226 Scott C. Broyles, Attorney at Law, Clarkeston, WA, for Appellant. Ann C. Shannon, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Colfax, WA, for Respondent.</
State v. Askhampublic domain
Sweeney, J. — A search warrant must be sufficiently particular to prevent a general exploratory search. This is frequently achieved by specifying the suspected crime. State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22, 28, 846 P.2d 1365 (1993). The search warrant here authorized the seizure of a broad range of computer files and images, but did not specify a crime. We conclude nonetheless that the warrant was specific enough. We also conclud
United States v. Shraderpublic domain
716 F.Supp.2d 464 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Defendant. Criminal Action No. 1:09-cr-00270. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Bluefield Division. August 11, 2010. *465 Betty A. Pullin, Thomas C. Ryan, U.S. Attorney's Office, Charleston, WV, for Plaintiff. Christi
State of Washington v. Timothy Wayne Hamptonpublic domain
FILED AUG 19, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) No. 39943-5
State Of Washington v. Derek Whittakerpublic domain
*399 Cox, J. ¶ 1 Derek Whittaker appeals his judgment and sentence for one count of domestic violence felony violation of a court order (count 1) and one count of felony stalking (count 2). There is sufficient evidence to support each of the alternative means of his felony stalking conviction. But the jury v
State of Washington v. Zachary James Fairleypublic domain
FILED FEBRUARY 18, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
State v. Changpublic domain
Becker, J. ¶1 The convictions appealed by Steven Chang arose from a search of his car. Because the officers had information there was a gun in the car, the warrantless search was appropriate to protect their safety. And Chang’s convictions for possession of a stolen access device were supported by his possession of checking account numbers. Because checking account numbers can be used to access accounts in nontraditional ways not
State v. Hainespublic domain
Dwyer, A.C.J. ¶1 James Haines was convicted of felony harassment, misdemeanor harassment, and misdemeanor stalking after he threatened Kebrah Bezabih on *430two separate occasions. He now appeals, contending that insufficient evidence supports his stalking conviction. According to Haines, this is so because the stalking statute requires proof of at least six predicate act
State v. Changpublic domain
195 P.3d 1008 (2008) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Steven K. CHANG, Appellant. No. 60743-0-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. November 17, 2008. *1009 Eric Nielsen, Nielsen Broman Koch, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Heidi J. Jacobsen-Watts, King County Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
State v. Hainespublic domain
213 P.3d 602 (2009) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James Alfred HAINES, Appellant. No. 61858-0-I. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1. August 3, 2009. *603 Sarah McNeel Hrobsky, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, WA, for Appellant. Dennis John McCurdy, King County Prosecutor's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respo
Lewis County v. McGeorgepublic domain
Rudkin, J. Between the 24th day of October, 1890, and the 15th day of June, 1895, the respondent, Lewis County, •caused to be constructed and completed what is locally known .as the Whittaker Lowry Ditch, with the exception of a certain lateral and the acquisition of the right of way, under the provisions of the act of March 19, 1890, entitled, “An act to provide for the construction, repairing and protection of ■drains and ditc
Clark v. Hackettpublic domain
CLIFFORD, Circuit Justice. Both the circuit court and the supreme court, in their respective spheres of judicial action, had undoubted jurisdiction of the cause and the parties, and their determination of the matter is final and conclusive, unless it be shown, in due form of law, that their respective decrees were procured by the fraud of the complainant in that suit. Circuit courts have no jurisdiction to review the judgments o