Legal Opinion

State v. Harner

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 2004No. Nos. 74460-2; 75337-7PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*231¶1 These consolidated cases require us to determine whether the absence of a drug court in the county where a defendant is charged violates that defendant’s rights to equal protection or due process. The Washington State Legislature has enabled counties to promulgate drug courts under RCW 2.28.170. We accepted review of State v. Harner from Division Two of the Court of Appeals and then granted a motion to transfer State v. Keithley from Division Three of the Court of Appeals, consolidating the cases because they present us with identical issues. Petitioners challenge their convictions and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. ThorneWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. BeckerWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. BeckerWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. CardenasWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. CardenasWashington Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Watch v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Andersen v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Madison v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Madison v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Andersen v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2006

22 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