Legal Opinion

State v. Cockrell

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 1984No. 50382-6PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtUtter, J.

Bruce and Martha Cockrell allege that the Superior Court erred in denying their motion for change of judge under RCW 4.12.040 and RCW 4.12.050 in their trial for manufacture and possession of a controlled substance and that their right not to be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense will be violated by a retrial of this case. They also claim that their right to privacy was unreasonably invaded by aerial surveillance of their property and that the warrant which issued for the search of their property was so broadly worded as to constitute a "general warrant." We conclude the trial…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Serfass v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. State v. MyrickWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Aday v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. State v. FisherWashington Supreme Court · 1982

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. State v. GainesWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. CoatesWashington Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. PerroneWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State v. CorradoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996
  5. State v. BelgardeWashington Supreme Court · 1992

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API