Supreme Court Calendar - February 15, 2000
February 15, 2000
|
9:00 A.M.
|
Olympia
|
Tuesday, February 15, 2000
|
|
Case No. 1 - 66246-1
|
COUNSEL
|
Jose and Elisa Mendoza,
v.
Ramiro and Jane Rivera-Chavez, Defendants,
Leader National Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leader National Insurance,
v.
Ramiro Rivera-Chavez,
Jose and Elisa Mandoza; Salvador Ruiz; Alejandro M. Munos-Mancinas; Javier S. Beltron and the heir or representatives of the estate of Evelio Ochoa Ramirez.
|
Kevin Roy
Theodore Roy
James Maloney III/Roland Skala
James Maloney III/Roland Skala
Kevin Roy
Theodore Roy
D. Bruce Morgan
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether an automobile insurance policy exclusion for use of the vehicle "in the commission of any felony" is ambiguous or against public policy.
|
|
Case No. 2 -67900-2
|
COUNSEL
|
Sammi Pennington, a/k/a Evelyn Van Pevenage,
v.
Clark M. Pennington.
----------------------------------------------------------------
68323-9
Diana J. Chesterfield,
v.
James E. Nash.
|
Michael McKasy
Charles Wiggins/Kenneth Masters
Edward Lane
Mary Gaudio/Daniel Modeen
Catherine Smith
|
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether, in each of these actions seeking property division, the evidence was sufficient to establish a meretricious relationship.
|
|
Case No. 3 -67105-2
|
COUNSEL
|
State of Washington,
v.
Cassandra Lynn Taylor
|
Michael Sommerfeld
Lise Ellner
|
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether a complaint charging assault in the fourth degree which does not expressly state the element of "intent" must be dismissed as unconstitutional if challenged before trial.
|
|
Case No. 4 -67701-8
|
COUNSEL
|
Marie Pitzer; Carolann Guilford; and James Allotta,
v.
Union Bank of California, as personal representative of the Estate of Rose Magrini,
and
In re the Estate of Rose Magrini,
and
In re the Estate of Frank Magrini.
|
Craig Coombs
Franklin Shoichet
James Feltus
Paul Willett
Kendall Jennings
|
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether former RCW 11.04.080, which allowed illegitimate children to inherit from an intestate father only if the father had acknowledged paternity in writing, was unconstitutional, and if so, whether that is a sufficient ground for reopening a probate closed in 1974.
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided for the convenience of the public only.
|
