¶1(dissenting) — I dissent. I think the statute simply intended to announce the plain proposition that an order for dismissal bars another prosecution for the same offense in cases of misdemeanor, and that no other question is involved in the enactment. If the appellant had been tried for assault and battery, after that *293charge had been dismissed, the second trial would have been illegal under the statute cited; but I do not think the statute should he construed further than its language imports. ■
32 Wash. 289
State v. Durbin
Decided July 20, 1903
Washington Supreme Court · decided 1903-07-20
<p>Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County. — Hon. Charles H. Heal, Judge.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1903-07-20
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1946
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →