Supreme Court Calendar - January 25, 2000
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
|
9:00 A.M.
|
Olympia
|
Tuesday, January 25, 2000
|
|
Case No. 1 -67907-0
|
COUNSEL
|
Deborah E. Cox and Gregory Cox, wife and husband,
v.
Lynn M. Spangler and John Doe Spangler, wife and husband; and Ronald Spangler and Jane Doe Spangler, husband and wife
|
John Durkin
Gregory Wall
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether a lone defendant in a personal injury action bears the burden of apportioning the plaintiff's injuries between the accident at issue and a prior accident not involving the defendant, and whether the collateral source rule precludes evidence of plaintiff's workers compensation benefits from the prior accident when the plaintiff's injuries are indivisible.
|
|
Case No. 2 -68428-6
|
COUNSEL
|
Linda J. Kucera; Donald W. Green; Jackie A. Rossworn and Nancy Leonard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v.
State of Washington, Department of Transportation and the Washington State Ferries,
and
Kitsap County,
and
City of Bremerton
|
Steve Berman
Sean Matt
Andrew Volk
William Williams
Heidi Irvin
Jacquelyn Aufderheide
Shelley Kneip
Glenna Malanca/Knute Rife
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether deployment of a new high-speed passenger ferry between Bremerton and Seattle is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act, and if so, whether the trial court properly enjoined the State from operating the ferry at high speed along a portion of its run pending SEPA review.
|
|
Case No. 3 -67994-1
|
COUNSEL
|
City of Kennewick,
v.
Douglas R. Day
|
Hon. John Ziobro
James Egan
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether, in this prosecution for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the defendant's reputation for drug and alcohol sobriety.
|
|
Case No. 4 -68103-1
|
COUNSEL
|
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,
v.
Eladio Avundes (Abundes)
|
Richard Puz
David Lybbert
|
|
SYNOPSIS: "Whether an injured worker's employment was essentially intermittent for the purpose of Workers' Compensation when he had been working at the same job for 50 consecutive days, but had gaps in his recent employment history."
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided for the convenience of the public only.
|
