Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

191 Wash. 2d 1001

422 P.3d 915

State v. Catling

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 8, 2018

Washington Supreme Court · decided 2018-08-08

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 2019

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“only on the issue whether the imposition of mandatory [LFOs] on the Petitioner violates the Social Security Act's antiattachment provision.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 193 Wash. 2d 252 - State v. Catling

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2018-08-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1¶ 1 A Special Department of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Owens, Stephens, González, and Yu, considered at its August 7, 2018, Motion Calendar, whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13. 4(b), and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶2¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶3¶ 3 That the petition for review is granted only on the issue whether the imposition of mandatory legal financial obligations on the Petitioner violates the Social Security Act's antiattachment provision. Any party may serve and file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of this order, see RAP 13.7(d).

For the Court/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE
/191/wash2d/1001 · .json · Public domain