|
9:00 A.M.
|
Olympia
|
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
|
Case No. 1 – 73647-2
|
COUNSEL
|
Mary Mulcahy,
v.
Farmers Insurance Company
|
Mary Mulcahy
Sidney Snyder, Jr.
|
SYNOPSIS: Mulcahy, who was insured by Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington at the time, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia. The court must decide whether Mulcahy is entitled to receive benefits according to British Columbia’s compulsory insurance law and whether her claims that Farmers acted in bad faith and in violation of the Consumer Protection Act were properly dismissed.
|
Case No. 2 – 73608-1
|
COUNSEL
|
In re the Personal Restraint Petition of
Amel W. Dalluge,
Petitioner.
|
David Zuckerman
Carolyn Fair
Teresa Chen
|
SYNOPSIS: This case involves issues surrounding an improper trial of a juvenile in adult criminal court, including whether trial or appellate counsel was ineffective because they failed to raise the error.
|
1:00 P.M.
Case No. 3 – 73747-9
|
COUNSEL
|
James and Carol James, et al.,
v.
The Board of Kitsap County Commissioners
|
Kenneth Masters/Charles Wiggins
William Broughton
Martin McQuaid
Peter Buck/Jeffrey Weber
|
SYNOPSIS: The Class members, as a condition to the issuance of a building permit from Kitsap County, either paid impact fees or entered into impact fee lien agreements with the County, after the County's comprehensive plan was invalidated by the Growth Management Hearing Board. The Class Members seek recovery of impact fees paid and non-enforcement of the impact fee lien agreements.
|
Case No. 4 – 73540-9
|
COUNSEL
|
In re Marriage of Lynn I. Horner,
and
Joseph R. Horner
|
Catherine Smith
Tonya Kowalski
Suzan Clark
|
SYNOPSIS: This court must decide whether it will hear this arguably moot case according to the continuing and substantial public interest factors. If this court decides to hear the case, then it must decide whether Joseph Horner rebutted the presumption of relocation when the trial court did not enter specific findings or discuss orally the eleven child relocation factors listed in RCW 26.09.520, and whether the Court of Appeals properly reviewed the trial court’s findings and decision for abuse of discretion.
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided for the convenience of the public only. |
