State v. Hudson

How courts have described this case

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

• “The eluding statute clearly 4 The trial court’s to-convict instruction tracked the language of the statute. 9 No. 88036-5-I/10 requires evidence that the officer giving the signal to stop shall be in uniform.”
• omitting immediately in a discussion of the elements
• omitting immediately in a discussion of the elements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Tandecki
  Washington Supreme Court· 2005-03-31· cited 31×
• State v. Treat
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2001-12-18· cited 22×
• In Re Interest of ADF
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1997-09-15· cited 15×
• State v. Ritts
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1999-03-23· cited 12×
• State v. Pittman
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-01-27· cited 9×
• State v. Tandecki
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2004-03-01· cited 7×
• State Of Washington, V Leldon Roy Pittman
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-01-27

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Hill
  Washington Supreme Court· 1994-03-17· cited 742×
• State v. Krall
  Washington Supreme Court· 1994-10-20· cited 139×
• State v. Baeza
  Washington Supreme Court· 1983-10-20· cited 82×
• State v. Gilbert
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1993-01-11· cited 26×
• State v. Stayton
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1984-11-30· cited 24×
• State v. Trowbridge
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1987-09-21· cited 12×
• State v. Fussell
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1996-11-12· cited 8×