|
|
|  |
|
- C.H. v. Girard, U.S. Dist. Court W.D. WA No. C-87-522 (consent decree governing use of isolation at state juvenile facilities);
- Feminist Women's Health Center v. Roberts, 63 F.3d 863 (1995); 69 F.3d 399 (1995) (civil rights and RICO lawsuit on behalf of clinic destroyed by anti-abortion activists);
- Best v. Grant Co., Kittitas Co. Sup. Ct. No. 04-00189-0 (settlement reached in class action lawsuit reforming the constitutionally inadequate single contract public defender system in Grant Co. WA.);
- Greenway, et al. v. Johnson, et al., Thurston Co. Sup. Ct. No. 88-2-00656-1, Court of Appeals No. 13298-2-II (injunction obtained prohibiting Parole Board from conditioning parole on indigents' ability to pay for polygraph exams);
- Hallett v. Morgan, 287 F.3d 1193, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)(Eighth Amendment challenge to health care provided at a women’s prison, resolved after 10 years of litigation with a $500,000 consent judgment);
- Holloway, et al. v. Hamilton, et al., Thurston Co. Sup. Ct. No. 88-2-02815-7 (consent decree obtained restricting the use of restraint and seclusion in state mental hospital);
- Horton, et al. v. Williams, et al., U.S. Dist. Court W.D. WA No. C-94-5428 (agreed order entered in class action challenging conditions of confinement at state juvenile institution; preliminary injunction obtained restricting the use of pepper spray on youth at the facility);
- In re Ayers, 105 Wn.2d 161, 713 P.2d 88 (1986) (alleged parole release decisions discriminated against the mentally disabled);
- In re Dawn S., Washington Supreme Court No. 58173-8 (challenging a status offender order involuntarily committing an “at-risk” youth to a long term out-of- state “treatment” facility);
- In re Earl, 48 Wn.2d 853, 740 P.2d 853 (Div. III, 1987) (Parole Board’s practice of requiring indigent prisoners to pay for treatment as a pre-condition to release on parole ruled unconstitutional);
- In re Myers, 105 Wn.2d 257; 714 P.2d 303 (1986) (held Parole Board sentencing practices violated state law and due process);
- In re Powell, 117 Wn.2d 175, 814 P.2d 635 (1991), Powell v. DuCharme, U.S. Dist. Court W.D. WA No. C-91-1461; 998 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1993) (ex post facto challenge to change in state sentencing law);
- In re Whitesel, 111 Wn.2d 621, 763 P.2d 199 (1988) (challenged the constitutionality of Parole Board sentencing practices);
- Lambert v. Blodgett, 248 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Wash. 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 393 F. 3d. 943 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 484 (2005) (federal habeas challenging guilty plea entered by 16 year old youth that resulted in a life without possibility of parole sentence);
- Lee v. Hamilton, 56 Wn. App. 880, 785 P.2d 1156 (Div. II, 1990) (held that a person acquitted by reason of insanity and then committed to a state hospital must be given credit against his maximum term for the period of his hospitalization prior to acquittal);
- Mayner v. Callahan, 873 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1989) (challenged state sentencing law on double jeopardy grounds);
- T.I., et al. v. Delia, et al., King Co. Sup. Ct. No. 90-2-16125-1 (court imposed population limit in juvenile detention facility where sexual assaults were frequent; consent decree entered regarding educational services to incarcerated youth);
- Willey, et al. v. Thompson, et al., Thurston Co. Sup. Ct. No. 92-2-00207-5 (injunction obtained prohibiting the Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation from transferring juveniles to adult prisons; state law permitting such transfers ruled unconstitutional);
- Tunstall v. Bergeson, 141 Wn.2d 201, 5 P.3d 691 (2000) (class action on behalf of youth incarcerated in adult prisons establishing the right to education under the Washington State Constitution);
- In re Meyer, 142 Wn.2d 608, 16 P.3d 563 (2001) (constitutional challenge to the procedures afforded released sex offenders deemed to present a future danger and subjected to community notification requirements);
- Boyle v. Braddock, U.S. Dist. Court, W.D. WA No. C-01-5687 (class action on behalf of people with developmental disabilities to redress violations of federal Medicaid laws by the State in providing community-based services);
- Monroe v. Soliz, 132 Wn.2d 414, 939 P.2d 206 (1997) (challenged the administrative transfers of juveniles serving juvenile court commitments to adult prisons);
- Nastase v. Miller, U.S. Dist. Court W.D. WA No. C-00-844 (class action settlement obtaining jailed women the right to community-based release programs previously offered only to men);
- St. Germaine v. Quasim, U.S. Dist. Court W.D. WA No. C-99-5134 (Americans with Disabilities Act case brought on behalf of disabled residents of civil commitment treatment facility resulted in significant accommodations for disabled residents including new construction to accommodate residents with mobility impairments);
- In re Barr, 102 Wn.2d 265, 684 P.2d 712 (1984) (guilty plea challenged on grounds petitioner not advised of a critical element of the charge);
- In re Eckmann, Blye, Serr & Chatman, 117 Wn.2d 678, 818 P.2d 1350 (1991) (mandatory minimum sentence practice of Parole Board challenged).
|
|
