State v. Bridge

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reversing burglary conviction because the State failed to show that defendant’s fingerprint on a store tag on a tool at the burglarized premises was impressed during the burglary, and not before the burglary
• reversing a conviction when the State solely relied on the defendant’s fingerprint on a tool in the 9 58338-1-II burglarized property because the tool was recently accessible to the public in the stream of commerce

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Todd
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2000-08-17· cited 23×
• State v. Treat
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2001-12-18· cited 22×
• State v. Anderson
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-04-23· cited 8×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Green
  Washington Supreme Court· 1980-08-28· cited 1,403×
• State v. Kroll
  Washington Supreme Court· 1976-12-16· cited 152×
• United States v. Howard Eugene Miller
  Ninth Circuit· 1982-09-21· cited 144×
• Ernest S. Borum v. United States
  D.C. Circuit· 1967-06-28· cited 107×
• Melvin Mikes v. Robert G. Borg, Warden Attorney General of the State of California
  Ninth Circuit· 1991-10-07· cited 103×
• Richman Bros. Records, Inc. v. US Sprint Communications Co.
  Supreme Court· 1992-06-29· cited 59×
• State v. Randhawa
  Washington Supreme Court· 1997-08-14· cited 45×
• United States v. Daniel Jackson Talbert
  Ninth Circuit· 1983-07-12· cited 29×
• State v. Zamora
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1991-10-15· cited 18×
• State v. Lucca
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1990-01-16· cited 16×
• State v. Bridge
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1998-05-07· cited 12×