For Immediate Release

Contact:
Shari Ireton
University of Washington School of Law
206.685.9002

2008-01-16

Washington Court of Appeals to Hold Court at UW Law School

SEATTLE - The Washington Court of Appeals, Division I will be hearing oral arguments on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at the UW School of Law in Room 133.  The three-judge panel consisting of Susan Agid, Ronald Cox ('73), and Anne Ellington ('74) will hear the following cases:

 
  • State v. Anthony T. Armstrong, No. 57413-2
    Armstrong allegedly shot and killed the victim. The State charged him with second degree murder under the alternative prongs of intentional murder and felony murder based on second degree assault (assault with a deadly weapon). Armstrong argues that the felony murder statute violates his right to equal protection because when a person assaults another resulting in the victim’s death, the statute allows the prosecutor to arbitrarily charge felony murder rather than intentional murder. The effect of this choice is two-fold: it relieves the State of the burden to prove intent to kill, and it prohibits the defendant from obtaining a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter.

  • Michael Treadwell v. Claudia Treseler, No. 59092-8
    Claudia Treseler filed for dissolution from her former husband, Michael Treadwell. He filed for dissolution in Texas. Motions were filed in the Washington action, but the parties eventually agreed to dismiss the case and proceed in Texas. Treadwell moved to seal portions of the record in the Washington action, but the trial court denied his motion. On appeal, Treadwell argues that a good cause standard for sealing records should apply in this case because the filed documents were not relevant to or part of any decision-making of the trial court since the action was dismissed before any decision on the merits. Alternatively, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion standard in declining to redact irrelevant statements that allegedly harmed his business interests. Finally, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to enter written findings and conclusions to support its ruling.

  • Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. King County, No. 59416-8
    This case concerns a dispute over a King County ordinance that applies to rural area zoned property and limits the amount of land that may be cleared on a given parcel. CAPR claims that the ordinance facially violates property owners’ substantive due process and also violates RCW 82.02.020. The trial court granted King County’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Citizens’ due process claim as unripe. The court also granted King County’s motion for summary judgment, entering a final order in favor of King County on the RCW 82.02.020 claim. Prior to deciding the summary judgment issues, the trial court denied Citizens’ motions to strike expert witness declarations and testimony, and its motion to conduct additional discovery. Citizen appeals the trial court’s orders.

  • State v. Alicia W, No. 59437-1
    Juvenile convicted of fourth degree assault. Physical altercation with mother. Appellant claims her conviction must be vacated because the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt she did not act in self-defense; claims mother’s use of force was not reasonable or justified.

Students who wish to attend are asked to arrive by 9:15 a.m. and need to RSVP on Symplicity. All attendees are asked to follow court etiquette and guidelines.