| 9:00 A.M |
UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND |
November 14, 2017 |
THREE CASES ONLY; TWO IN A.M. - ONE IN P.M.
| Case No. 1 –94162-9 |
COUNSEL |
KENNETH WRIGHT, on his own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons
v.
LYFT, INC., a Delaware Corporation |
Donald W. Heyrich
Jason Rittereiser
Peter D. Stutheit
Kenneth Masters
Bradley Keller
Keith Petrak
Nicholas Ryan-Lang
|
SYNOPSIS: What must a plaintiff prove in an action for receiving an unsolicited commercial text message?
|
| Case No. 2 – 94346-0 |
COUNSEL |
STATE OF WASHINGTON
v.
MICHAEL DAVID MURRAY |
Kristin Ann Relyea
Nancy P. Collins
Gregory Charles Link
Richard Wayne Lechich
|
SYNOPSIS: Is sexual motivation a required element of indecent exposure? Is a 2 ½ week period “shortly after” release from prison?
|
1:30 P.M.
| Case No. 3 - 94273-1 |
COUNSEL |
STATE OF WASHINGTON
v.
HOLLIS BLOCKMAN |
James S. Schacht
Stephanie C. Cunningham
|
SYNOPSIS: Was a police “protective sweep” of a home permissible under any warrant requirement exception to our constitutions?
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided only for the convenience of the public. |
