Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Kennewick v. Vandergriff

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1987No. 53438-1Published

1DissentPearson, C.J.

(dissenting) — The majority holds that a defendant's motion to the court to correct an improper trial date may not be made ex parte. I disagree for two reasons. First, I believe once a court is notified it has set an improper trial date, the court has an absolute duty to correct its mistake. Second, I believe the defendant's motion is *104of a type we generally permit to be made ex parte, for granting the motion would not have resulted in prejudice to the opposing side.

JCrR 3.08(a) unequivocally imposes on the trial court the duty to set a trial date consistent with the speedy trial court rule:…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. State v. MacKWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  3. In Re the Marriage of WherleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1983
  4. State v. WunderlichNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State ex rel. McLeod v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API