Skip to main content

State v. Hubbard

Citations

  • 679 P.2d 391
  • 37 Wash. App. 137
  • 1984 Wash. App. LEXIS 2751

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that an objection based on a lack of foundation “with no particularity as to the nature of the deficiency” is insufficient to preserve error for appeal
  • only objection to exhibit at trial was a lack of proper foundation, with no particularity as to the nature of the deficiency, therefore trial judge did not err in admitting exhibit
  • subsequent questioning occurred \immediately after\ principal act
  • subsequent questioning occurred “immediately after” principal act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scholfield, Ringold, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

30 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.