Arguments

Last updated: February 10th, 2010

This is a list of all recently scheduled oral arguments, in reverse chronological order.

Visit Recent Arguments for past oral arguments, and Upcoming Arguments for future oral arguments.

If you can’t find a case on our website, it’s because we’re still updating our database. In the meantime, here are some useful links to the Washington Courts website:

Honorable Richard B. Sanders v. State of Washington

Tags:

In re Pers. Restraint of Blackburn v. State

Synopsis: Whether revocation of an alternative sentence for a drug offender for failure to “obey all laws” violated due process because the offender was not given adequate notice of the law he was accused of failing to obey.

In re Paul H. King, Attorney at Law

Tags:

Stenson v. Vail

Synopsis: Whether Washington’s lethal injection procedure for offenders sentenced to death constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Brown v. Vail

Synopsis: Whether Washington’s lethal injection procedure for offenders sentenced to death constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

O’Neill v. City of Shoreline

Synopsis: Whether metadata associated with agency e-mail is a public record disclosable under the Public Records Act.

State v. Patel

Synopsis: Whether the defendant was properly convicted of attempted child rape when the purported victim was a police officer posing as a child on the Internet.

Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC

Synopsis: Whether a provision in a 25-year mobile home lease that reduces the lease to a term of one year if it is assigned violated the requirement of the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act that mobile home leases be assignable.

Rivard v. State

Synopsis: Whether a person previously convicted of vehicular homicide when that crime was a class B felony may be prohibited from possessing firearms based on the current classification of the crime as a class A felony.

State v. Stubbs

Synopsis: Whether a defendant convicted of first degree assault based on the infliction of “great bodily harm” was properly given an exceptional sentence based on the infliction of injuries that “substantially exceed the level of bodily harm necessary to satisfy the elements of the offense.” See RCW 9.94A.535(3)(y).