State v. Whalen

How courts have described this case

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

• stating rule in the context of possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine
• rejecting the State’s argument that a prima facie case of intent to manufacture was established by the defendant “attempting to shoplift more pseudoephedrine than he could legally purchase at one time”
• “[T]he independent evidence must support a logical and reasonable inference of criminal activity only.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Brockob
  Washington Supreme Court· 2006-12-28· cited 202×
• State Of Washington v. Victor W. Sprague
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2021-02-09· cited 22×
• State v. Whalen
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2005-12-28· cited 9×
• State v. Missieur
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2007-08-31· cited 6×
• State v. Missieur
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2007-08-20· cited 6×
• State v. Brockob
  Washington Supreme Court· 2007-01-26· cited 2×
• State Of Washington v. Lafe William Hotchkiss, Ii
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2017-11-07

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Miranda v. Arizona
  Supreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
• State v. Riley
  Washington Supreme Court· 1993-03-04· cited 350×
• State v. Vangerpen
  Washington Supreme Court· 1995-02-09· cited 277×
• State v. Aten
  Washington Supreme Court· 1996-11-27· cited 189×
• State v. Smith
  Washington Supreme Court· 1990-12-13· cited 122×
• City of Bremerton v. Corbett
  Washington Supreme Court· 1986-08-21· cited 110×
• State v. McPherson
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-05-16· cited 47×
• State v. Cobelli
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1989-12-27· cited 39×
• State v. Moles
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2005-11-22· cited 31×
• State v. Pineda
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2000-01-28· cited 25×