From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Clark Cnty.

Supreme Court of Washington.
Feb 10, 2016
380 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2016)

Opinion

NO. 92172–5

02-10-2016

Timothy White, Petitioner, v. Clark County, Respondent.


ORDER

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Madsen and Justices Owens, Stephens, González and Yu, considered at its February 9, 2016, Motion Calendar, whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b), and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That consideration of this matter is continued to this Court's March 3, 2016, En Banc Conference. However, if after additional consideration the five members of the Department are able to unanimously agree as to the resolution of the matter, an order reflecting such determination will be filed, and the matter will be stricken from the March 3, 2016, En Banc Conference.

For the Court

/s/Madsen, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE


Summaries of

White v. Clark Cnty.

Supreme Court of Washington.
Feb 10, 2016
380 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2016)
Case details for

White v. Clark Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:Timothy White, Petitioner, v. Clark County, Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court of Washington.

Date published: Feb 10, 2016

Citations

380 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2016)