|
9:00 A.M.
|
Olympia
|
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
|
Case No. 1 - 77684-9
|
COUNSEL
|
Robert C. Woo, D.D.S. et ux.
v.
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, et al.
|
Richard Kilpatrick/R. Andrew Bergh &
Charles Wiggins
Michael King/Michael Runyan/Emilia Sweeney
|
SYNOPSIS: Does an insurer have a duty to defend its insured dentist against a suit brought by an employee resulting from a practical joke the dentist played on the employee while he was performing a dental procedure on her?
|
Case No. 2 - 77548-6
|
COUNSEL
|
Patricia A. Soltero
v.
Kenneth L. Wimer
|
Robert R. Cossey
Allen M. Gauper
|
SYNOPSIS: May a court make a just and equitable distribution from one partner's separate property when a meretricious relationship ends?
|
1:30 P.M.
Case No. 3 - 77590-7
|
COUNSEL
|
Stephen Sleasman, et ux.
v.
City of Lacey
|
Michael G. Gusa
W. Dale Kamerrer/Joseph M. Svoboda
|
SYNOPSIS: Stephen and Barb Sleasman own a house on a .29 acre lot in Lacey, Washington. After they cut down their trees, Lacey fined them for violating the tree removal ordinance. The Lacey Municipal Code regulates tree removal on undeveloped or partially developed land only. LMC 14.32.030(C). What is the meaning of “partially developed” under the ordinance? Alternatively, because it fails to define “partially developed,” is the ordinance unconstitutionally vague?
|
Case No. 4 - 77708-0
|
COUNSEL
|
Cashmere Valley Bank
v.
Terry B. Brender
|
Brian Walker
J. Kevin Bromiley
|
SYNOPSIS: Under the federal Truth in Lending Act loans for personal, family, and household purposes are subject to disclosure requirements; those primarily for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes are exempt. By what method should Washington courts determine whether an extension of credit is primarily for business or commercial purposes?
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided for the convenience of the public only.
|
