Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Gary Daniel MEREDITH, Petitioner.

MADSEN

Prior report: 163 Wash.App. 75, 165 Wash.App. 704, 259 P.3d 324.

ORDER

MADSEN, C.J., Chief Justice.

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Madsen and Justices Chambers, Fairhurst, Stephens and Gonzalez, considered the petition for review at its March 27, 2012, Motion Calendar and entered an order continuing this matter to the April 26, 2012, en banc conference. After further consideration of this matter, the Department unanimously agreed that the following order be entered:

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the Petition for Review is granted only on the issue of the scope of the bright line rule articulated in State v. Rhone, 168 Wash.2d 645, 229 P.3d 752, cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 522, 178 L.Ed.2d 385 (2010), in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Any party may serve and file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of this order. See RAP 13.7(d).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

State v. Meredith
(Apr 23, 2012)