Washington Supreme Court· 12/28/1984

State v. Campbell

Citations

691 P.2d 929
103 Wash. 2d 1

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that defendant could not show prejudice because of defense counsel’s continuance over his objections when continuance ensured more effective representation and fair trial
holding that the court may grant defense counsel's motion for a continuance over defendant's objection if necessary \in the administration of justice\ for pretrial preparation
holding that there is no abuse of discretion in granting a continuance to allow counsel to prepare defense over the defendant's objection
holding that the court may grant defense counsel’s motion for a continuance over defendant’s objection if necessary “in the administration of justice” for pretrial preparation
holding that there is no abuse of discretion in granting a continuance to allow counsel to prepare defense over the defendant’s objection
concluding that defendant could not show prejudice because of defense counsel’s continuance over his objections when continuance ensured more effective representation and fair trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dimmick, Rosellini, Utter, Dolliver

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

145 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

80 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.