Occasionally, the Court goes “On The Road” to hear cases outside of Olympia. These cases are listed below.
The Court often holds public Q&A Sessions following oral argument in those cases, which you can browse and listen to.
The Court’s most recent Road Trips were on October 18, 2011 at Seattle University School of Law and on October 21, 2010 at Gonzaga School of Law.
In re the Dependency of MSR & TSR
Docket No. 85729-6
Argued: Tuesday, October 18th, 2011
Argued: Tuesday, October 18th, 2011
Synopsis: Whether children have a constitutional right to counsel in proceedings to terminate parental rights.
State v. Johnson
Docket No. 85765-2
Argued: Tuesday, October 18th, 2011
Argued: Tuesday, October 18th, 2011
Synopsis: Whether a defendant who recruits adults to pose as minors for prostitution may be convicted of attempted promoting of commercial sexual abuse of a minor. See State v. Patel, 170 Wn.2d 476, 242 P.3d 856 (2010).
Clark v. Smith Bunday Berman Britton
Docket No. 84903-0
Argued: Tuesday, October 18th, 2011
Argued: Tuesday, October 18th, 2011
Synopsis: Whether sealed documents appended to a summary judgment motion and filed with the trial court but not considered by the court in reaching its decision may be ordered to remain sealed only upon consideration of the five-part test articulated in Seattle Times v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982).
Seattle v. May
Docket No. 83677-9
Argued: Thursday, October 21st, 2010
Argued: Thursday, October 21st, 2010
Facts: Petitioner Robert May was convicted in the Seattle Municipal Court of violating a no contact order that prohibited him from contacting his former wife. May appealed his conviction, asserting that the no contact order was invalid insofar as the superior court that issued it failed to make the required finding that he was likely to resume acts of domestic violence that was necessary for the duration of the order to extend beyond one year and that the no contact order failed to provide notice that violating it would be a criminal offense. Read more...
Washington v. Martin
Docket No. 83709-1
Argued: Thursday, October 21st, 2010
Argued: Thursday, October 21st, 2010
Facts: Petitioner Timothy Martin was convicted of kidnapping and robbery in the Superior Court for Snohomish County after a trial in which the prosecutor implied during their cross-examination of Martin that Martin had tailored his testimony in response to the testimony of previous witnesses. Read more...
Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc.
Docket No. 84168-3
Argued: Thursday, October 21st, 2010
Argued: Thursday, October 21st, 2010
Facts: Respondent Larry Michaels filed suit against petitioner CH2M Hill, Inc. in the Superior Court for Spokane County after being injured in an accident at a sewage treatment plant operated by the city of Spokane that was caused by CH2M Hill recommending, in its capacity as a consultant for a project to upgrade and retrofit the plant, that flows of heated and unheated sludge be separated. Read more...
Rahman v. State
Docket No. 83428-8
Argued: Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Argued: Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Facts: Respondent Rizwana Rahman filed suit against the petitioner state of Washington in the Superior Court for Thurston County after being injured in an automobile accident while accompanying her husband on official state business. Read more...
Washington v. Brousseau
Docket No. 83415-6
Argued: Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Argued: Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Facts: Petitioner William Brousseau was convicted of the rape of a child and child molestation in the Superior Court for Asotin County after a trial in which the alleged victim testified after being deemed competent following a competency hearing and in which out of court statements made by the alleged victim were admitted into evidence pursuant to Washington Revised Code §9A.44.120’s child hearsay exception. Brousseau subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that he was denied due process of law when the trial court prevented him from calling the alleged victim to testify at the competency hearing, that §9A.44.120 requires that a child testify at their pretrial child hearsay hearing in order for their out of court statements to be admissible at trial, and that his attorney’s failure to object to testimony regarding the alleged victim’s credibility constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Read more...
In re personal restraint of Adolph
Docket No. 82868-7
Argued: Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Argued: Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
Facts: Following petitioner Vincent Adolph's conviction for vehicular homicide and vehicular assault in the Superior Court for Okanogan County, an enhanced sentence was imposed upon Adolph pursuant to Washington Revised Code §46.61.520(2) on grounds that Adolph had three prior convictions for driving under the influence. Read more...
Washington v. Bunker
Docket No. 81921-1
Argued: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
Argued: Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010
Facts: Petitioner Leo Bunker was convicted of violating a no contact order in contravention of Washington Revised Code §26.50.110 in the Superior Court for King County after a traffic stop revealed that Lillian Hiatt, whom Bunker was prohibited by court order from contacting, was a passenger in his automobile. Read more...