9:00 A.M.
|
Olympia
|
June 16, 2011
|
| THREE CASES ONLY - TWO IN A.M. - ONE IN P.M. |
Case No. 1 - 83660-4
|
COUNSEL |
TIMOTHY L. JACKOWSKI, et ux
v.
DAVID BORCHELT, et ux, et al.
HIMLIE REALTY, INC., et al.
ROBERT JOHNSON
|
Jon Cushman/Benjamin Cushman
& Stephanie M.R. Bird
Robert Johnson/Kristin French/Jeffrey Downer
& Erin Varriano
Melanie Leary/Matthew Davis
Jeffrey Downer/Erin Varriano
|
SYNOPSIS: Home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home sellers, the sellers' agent and the purchasers' own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. Did the trial court err in granting, primarily on the basis of the economic loss rule, summary judgment dismissal of the purchasers' claims? |
Case No. 2 - 84632-4
|
COUNSEL |
FIVE CORNERS FAMILY FARMERS, et al.
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.
and
WASHINGTON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, et al.
|
Janette Brimmer/Kristen Boyles
Mary Sue Wilson/William Cameron/R. Crane Bergdahl
Gregory McElroy/James Buchal/Jeffrey Slothower
|
SYNOPSIS: RCW 90.44.050 requires a prospective groundwater user to obtain a permit from the Department of Ecology before withdrawing public groundwater, unless the use falls under an exemption. Easterday Ranches sited a 30,000-head cattle feedlot and planned to use the stock-watering exemption for its groundwater use, rather than seek a permit. This case asks us to decide whether permit-exempt withdrawals of public groundwater for stock-watering purposes are limited in quantity. |
1:30 P.M.
Case No. 3 - 84856-4
|
COUNSEL |
STATE OF WASHINGTON
v.
MICHAEL LYNN SUBLETT & CHRISTOPHER LEE OLSEN |
Carol La Verne
Jeffrey Ellis/Jodi Backlund/Manek Mistry
|
SYNOPSIS: Does answering a question from the jury in chambers violate defendants' public trial right? Is second degree robbery in California similar to second degree robbery in Washington? Additionally, this case challenges whether the trial court properly denied separate trials, whether the jury instructions were correct, and whether lesser included offense instructions should have been given. |
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided only for the convenience of the public.
|
