Sandoval v. Sullivan

Washington Supreme Court

Sandoval v. Sullivan

414 P.3d 581, 190 Wash. 2d 1007

Washington Supreme Court·Decided April 4, 2018·No. No. 95239-6·Published

Opinion

¶ 1 Department I of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Johnson, Owens, Wiggins and Gordon McCloud, considered at its April 3, 2018, 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 The Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file the petition for review is denied, and therefore the petition for review is dismissed as untimely.

For the Court.

/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

¶ 1 Department I of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Johnson, Owens, Wiggins and Gordon McCloud, considered at its April 3, 2018, 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 The Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file the petition for review is denied, and therefore the petition for review is dismissed as untimely.

For the Court.

/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Sandoval v. Sullivan, 414 P.3d 581, 190 Wash. 2d 1007 (Wash. 2018).

Pincite

414 P.3d 581 (Sandoval v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.