Supreme Court Calendar - May 31, 2000
May 31, 2000
|
9:00 A.M.
|
Olympia
|
Wednesday, May 31, 2000
|
|
Case No. 1 - 68284-4
|
COUNSEL
|
King County,
- v.
Upper Green River Valley Preservation Society; Hollywood Hill Association; Robert E. Tidball (d/b/a T&M Berry Farm); Preserve Land For Agriculture Now; Puget Sound Farm Trust,
- and
Northshore Youth Soccer Association; Pro Parks; Woodinville Little League; Woodinville West Little League; Bothell North Little League; and Northshore Little League.
|
H. Kevin Wright
Peter Ramels
Darrell Mitsunaga
Hilary Franz
Peter Eglick
Jane Kiker
John Keegan
Jeffrey Weber
Glenn Amster
Herbert Sorg, Jr.
|
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether amendments to King County's comprehensive plan and zoning code, which allow limited active recreation uses within agricultural production districts, violate the Growth Management Act.
|
|
Case No. 2 - 68531-2
|
COUNSEL
|
State of Washington,
- v.
Timothy M. Longshore.
|
David St. Pierre
Stephen Johnson
|
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether clams in naturally occurring beds on privately owned tidelands qualify as "property of another" for purposes of the theft statutes.
|
1:30 P.M.
|
Case No. 3 - 68017-5
|
COUNSEL
|
In re the Personal Restraint Petition of
Jose Echeverria.
|
Eric Nielsen
Eric Broman
Paige Sully
Pam Loginsky
|
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether a defendant may challenge by personal restraint petition his exceptional sentence for second degree murder by claiming he was not given an opportunity to make a statement in mitigation to the sentencing judge prior to sentencing.
|
|
Case No. 4 - 68141-4
|
COUNSEL
|
Allstate Insurance Company,
- v.
Martin E. Raynor, individually, as the personal representative of the Estate of Cheryl Raynor, and as the Guardian Ad Litem of Kathryn Raynor, a minor; David Johnson, individually and as the personal representative of the Estate of Candy Johnson.
|
R. Daniel Lindahl
Michael McKinstry
Keith Kemper
Thomas Geisness
Robert Clough
|
|
SYNOPSIS: Whether an "intentional or criminal acts" exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy precludes coverage as a matter of law, where the insured, though not criminally insane, was allegedly mentally ill and incapable of rationally controlling his actions, and was never prosecuted; and whether a joint obligations clause improperly circumvents the efficient proximate cause rule.
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided for the convenience of the public only.
|
