State v. McCaughey

How courts have described this case

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

• “It is illogical to extrapolate the inferred fact of defendant’s knowledge into the inferential conclusion of defendant’s possession.”
• defendant did not have actual or constructive possession of stolen property found in car where only evidence was that defendant had access to property and was in close proximity to car
• accused nodded head in apparent agreement, statement admissible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Morrill
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-09-10· cited 146×
• State v. Boast
  Washington Supreme Court· 1976-08-26· cited 112×
• In Re Dependency of Penelope B.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1985-11-14· cited 52×
• Pueblo ex rel. F.S.C.
  Supreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1991-06-28· cited 48×
• State v. Sizemore
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1993-06-28· cited 35×
• State v. McCoy
  Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1989-08-04· cited 32×
• State v. Gutierrez
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1988-02-09· cited 31×
• State v. Plank
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1987-02-02· cited 18×
• State v. Summers
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1986-09-29· cited 16×
• Harrison v. State
  Nevada Supreme Court· 1980-04-09· cited 10×
• State v. Isom
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1977-07-14· cited 4×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Callahan
  Washington Supreme Court· 1969-10-02· cited 191×
• State v. Potts
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1969-12-30· cited 58×
• State v. Mathews
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1971-04-09· cited 43×
• State v. Lounsbery
  Washington Supreme Court· 1968-10-10· cited 34×
• State v. Fullen
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1972-07-24· cited 33×
• Martin v. Insurance Co. of North America
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1969-10-30· cited 16×