Docket No. 76950-8  Facts:  Petitioner Harry O’Neal was convicted of the manufacture of methamphetamine while armed with a firearm in the Superior Court for Thurston County after a search of his home revealed drug paraphernalia and several firearms.  O’Neal appealed the sentencing enhancement arising from the jury’s finding that he committed the crime while armed with a firearm, asserting that the firearms were not easily accessible and readily available and that there was no nexus between him, the manufacture of methamphetamine, and the firearms.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed O’Neal’s conviction. Continue reading →

Docket No. 76861-7  Synopsis: Can the State impose a firearms enhancement on Easterlin’s drug possession conviction? Continue reading →

Docket No. 76100-1  Facts:  Petitioner Don Eckenrode was convicted of the manufacture and possession of marijuana while armed with a firearm in the Superior Court for Pierce County and sentenced.  Eckenrode appealed the sentencing enhancement arising from the jury’s finding that he committed the crimes while armed with a firearm, asserting that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it needed to find a nexus between him, the manufacture and possession of marijuana, and the firearm.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Eckenrode’s sentence. Continue reading →

Docket No. 76947-8  Synopsis: Should a conviction be vacated when the defendant dies before an appeal is resolved? Continue reading →

Docket No. 76938-9  Synopsis: May a claimant bring a lawsuit against a dissolved corporation? Continue reading →

Docket No. 76850-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 52135-7)  Synopsis: Does the “notice and opportunity to cure” provision of the Construction Defect Claims Act apply to a homeowner’s lawsuit when the construction professionals did not give initial notice of the requirement because they constructed the condominiums before the statute became effective? Continue reading →

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 →