Legal Opinion
State v. Longshore
Washington Supreme Court
Decided August 17, 2000No. 68531-2PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.
— Digging 340 pounds of clams on privately owned tidelands earned Timothy Longshore a conviction for second degree theft. The questions are twofold: do clams in naturally occurring beds on privately owned tidelands constitute “property of another” within the meaning of the theft statutes, and, if so, did the state prove the clams Longshore took had a market value of more than $250. We answer both questions in the affirmative, and affirm.
FACTS
William Mackelwich owns a waterfront lot on Hammersley Inlet in Mason County. There are naturally occurring clam beds in the tidelands along the inlet,…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Martin v. Lessee of WaddellSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Smith v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- State v. LongshoreWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- Esplanade Properties, Llc, a Washington Limited Liability Company v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- State Of Washington, V Justin Michael HartCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
- State v. EhrhardtCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- State v. CeglowskiCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.