Docket No. 77406-4  Facts:  Alleging that respondent Cingular Wireless overcharged its customers by unlawfully adding hidden charges, a group of customers led by petitioner Doug Scott initiated a class action against Cingular Wireless.  The trial court granted Cingular Wireless’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a clause in its standard subscriber contract.  Continue reading →

Docket No. 77101-4  Facts:  Respondent Suzy Dix and other subscribers to America Online’s internet service filed a class action in the state of Washington against I.C.T. Group, Inc., asserting that I.C.T. Group, which is responsible for handling customer service inquiries for America Online, engaged in deceptive practices in violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (Washington Revised Code §19.86).  The trial court dismissed the class action on grounds that the forum selection clause in America Online’s service agreement requires that any claims arising from customers’ use of the service be brought in Virginia.  Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the forum selection clause is unenforceable insofar as the selected forum of Virginia does not permit class actions, rendering the forum selection clause contrary to the public policy underlying the Consumer Protection Act. Continue reading →

Docket No. 76719-0 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 51452-1)  Synopsis: Are the arbitration provisions in Regence’s agreements with these health care providers enforceable? Continue reading →

Docket No. 77112-0  Synopsis: Is a defendant charged with second degree child molestation entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication? Is a defendant charged with second degree child molestation entitled to instruct the jury on fourth degree assault as a lesser included offense? Continue reading →

Docket No. 76948-6  Synopsis: Did the trial court violate the Sentencing Reform Act or the Equal Protection clause by considering the defendant’s possible deportation in denying a sentence under the special sex offender sentencing alternative? Continue reading →

Docket No. 77490-1 (from King Case No. 041094930)  Synopsis: Is an indigent criminal defendant represented by a private counsel entitled to necessary expert assistance at public expense? Continue reading →

Docket No. 77317-3 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 23678-1)  Synopsis: Does RCW 69.50.408′s language “twice the term otherwise authorized” refer to the standard range sentence or the maximum sentence or both? Continue reading →

Docket No. 76824-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 54101-3)  Synopsis: Must police officers warn traffic stop detainees that the officer is recording their conversation? Continue reading →

Docket No. 76720-3 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 29549-1)  Synopsis: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding monetary compensatory sanctions for discovery abuse without considering on the record a lesser sanction, the willfulness of the abuse, and the prejudice arising from it? Continue reading →

Docket No. 76527-8 (from Pierce Case No. 042111451)  Synopsis: Did Initiative Measure 841 eliminate the Department of Labor & Industries’ ability to enforce ergonomic-related workplace hazards under the “general duty clause?” Continue reading →