State v. Vance
Citations
- 29 Wash. 435
- 70 P. 34
- 1902 Wash. LEXIS 606
Syllabus
<p>APPEAL-WHEN AFFIDAVIT INCORPORATED IN RECORD.</p> <p>Where a motion for continuance and an affidavit supporting it were filed as one paper, and the order of the court denying the motion expressly recites that the court had read the affidavit presented in support of the motion, the journal entry of the order would mate the affidavit a part' of the record, without the necessity of incorporating it by means of a hill of exceptions or a statement of facts.</p> <p>SAME — CHALLENGE TO JURY PANEL — WHEN PART OF RECORD.</p> <p>A written verified challenge to the panel of jurors, served upon the adverse party and filed in court, is properly a part of the transcript on appeal, without the necessity of being incorporated therein by hill of exceptions or statement of facts.</p> <p>SAME-SELECTION OF JURORS-RECORD ON APPEAL.</p> <p>All the proceedings regulating the selection of jurors under Laws 1901, p. 204, are a part of the general records of the superior court in each case tried by jury, and, by virtue of their nature and purpose, when properly, certified by the clerk of the superior court, will be considered on appeal, independent of any bill of exceptions or statement of facts.</p> <p>CONTINUANCE — SUFFICIENCY OF SHOWING.</p> <p>A motion for a continuance in a criminal case, on the ground that- the defendant did not have time to prepare for his trial and procure witnesses for his defense was properly denied where it appears from the record that there was a period of forty-one days between the commission of the crime and the date of trial, and more than a month between the dates of preliminary examination and trial; that defendant was represented by attorney during the whole of the time; that the scene of the crime was located thirty-five miles from the county seat, but in no way shown to be inaccessible; and where the affidavit for continuance failed to comply with the provisions of Bal. Code, § 6929, in, such matters, in that it did not give the names of any absent wit
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- striking down regulation that “substantially [ ] prohibited ... non-resident photographers”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
56 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. RossWashington Supreme Court· 2009-03-05· cited 172×
- State v. RossWashington Supreme Court· 2004-08-12· cited 171×
- GRANT CTY. FIRE PROT. DIST. v. City of Moses LakeWashington Supreme Court· 2004-01-29· cited 157×
- Amunrud v. Board of AppealsWashington Supreme Court· 2006-09-21· cited 143×
- American Legion Post 149 v. WASH. DEPT. OF HEALTHWashington Supreme Court· 2008-09-11· cited 129×
- American Legion Post No. 149 v. Department of HealthWashington Supreme Court· 2008-09-11· cited 127×
- Association of Washington Spirits & Wine Distributors v. Washington State Liquor Control BoardWashington Supreme Court· 2015-01-08· cited 94×
- Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses LakeWashington Supreme Court· 2004-01-29· cited 93×
- State v. SchoelWashington Supreme Court· 1959-07-02· cited 85×
- Andersen v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 2006-07-26· cited 70×
- Madison v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 2007-07-26· cited 67×
- International Franchise Ass'n v. City of SeattleNinth Circuit· 2015-09-25· cited 60×
- State v. PicardCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1998-04-17· cited 55×
- Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 2020-11-05· cited 38×
- State v. BaileyNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1921-01-14· cited 36×
- Schroeder v. WeighallWashington Supreme Court· 2014-01-16· cited 32×
- Mattson v. Eureka Cedar Lumber & Shingle Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1914-04-27· cited 27×
- Swanson v. Pacific Shipping Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1910-09-10· cited 22×
- Certification From the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Ockletree v. Franciscan Health SystemWashington Supreme Court· 2014-02-06· cited 20×
- Spoar v. Turn-VereinWashington Supreme Court· 1911-07-15· cited 20×
Cites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. PowerWashington Supreme Court· 1901-02-13· cited 42×
- State v. LarkinsIdaho Supreme Court· 1897-02-11· cited 36×
- State v. EddonWashington Supreme Court· 1894-02-23· cited 32×
- Clay v. Selah Valley Irrigation Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1896-05-22· cited 23×
- Benedict v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court· 1861-12-11· cited 22×
- Brooks v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1896-11-28· cited 17×
- State v. HymerNevada Supreme Court· 1880-01-15· cited 14×
- State v. AndersonWashington Supreme Court· 1898-11-21· cited 10×
- Armstrong v. Van De VanterWashington Supreme Court· 1899-12-23· cited 10×
- State v. CareyWashington Supreme Court· 1896-11-17· cited 9×
- State v. HowardWashington Supreme Court· 1896-10-29· cited 8×
- Thompson v. ThorntonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-07-01· cited 8×
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.