Legal Opinion
Champagne v. Thurston County
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided August 8, 2006No. 34039-9-IIPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
141 P.3d 72 (2006)
Gene CHAMPAGNE, Cary Brown, Roland Knoor, and Christopher Scanlon individuals and as representatives of a class of Thurston County overtime eligible employees, Appellants,
v.
THURSTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Respondent.
No. 34039-9-II.
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.
August 8, 2006.
William B. Aitchison, Attorney at Law, Portland, OR, Hillary H. McClure, Aitchison & Vick Inc., Seattle, WA, for Appellants.
Jeffrey George Fancher, Attorney at Law, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.
HUNT, J.
¶ 1 Thurston County correction officers Gene…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wilson v. SteinbachWashington Supreme Court · 1982
- Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Ass'n v. Boeing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
- Harberd v. City of Kettle FallsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- Harberd v. City of Kettle FallsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
3Cited by9 opinions
- Champagne v. Thurston CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Champagne v. Thurston CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- Backman v. Northwest Publishing Center, LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Clark v. City of KentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- Clark v. City of KentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.