State v. Anderson

Washington Supreme Court

State v. Anderson

414 P.2d 49, 68 Wash. 2d 973, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 836

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedMay 12, 1966

DocketNo. 37961

StatusPublished

This text of 414 P.2d 49 (State v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Anderson, 414 P.2d 49, 68 Wash. 2d 973, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 836 (Wash. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Robert Anderson was charged and convicted in Justice Court on three counts as follows: (1) driving while under the influence of or affected by the use of intoxicating liquor, (2) negligent driving, (3) driving while operator’s license was suspended or revoked.

On appeal to the Superior Court for the County of Spokane, he was again similarly charged, tried de novo before a jury, and again convicted. He has appealed to the Supreme Court.

We have examined the briefs, heard argument, and reviewed the record on appeal. On this basis we have evaluated appellant’s assignments of eror. We find no merit in them, individually or collectively. [974]*974There would be no precedental value in outlining the facts or in elaborating further upon appellant’s assignments of error, or our evaluation and disposition of these.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Robert Anderson was charged and convicted in Justice Court on three counts as follows: (1) driving while under the influence of or affected by the use of intoxicating liquor, (2) negligent driving, (3) driving while operator’s license was suspended or revoked.

On appeal to the Superior Court for the County of Spokane, he was again similarly charged, tried de novo before a jury, and again convicted. He has appealed to the Supreme Court.

We have examined the briefs, heard argument, and reviewed the record on appeal. On this basis we have evaluated appellant’s assignments of eror. We find no merit in them, individually or collectively. [974]*974There would be no precedental value in outlining the facts or in elaborating further upon appellant’s assignments of error, or our evaluation and disposition of these.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 P.2d 49, 68 Wash. 2d 973, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-wash-1966.