State v. Summers, 43 P.3d 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · Go Syfert
State v. Summers, 43 P.3d 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
60 citation events (60 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: POC USA LLC v. Expeditors International of Washington Inc (wawd, 2024-04-11)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) POC USA LLC v. Expeditors International of Washington Inc
W.D. Wash. · 2024 · confidence medium
App. 798 , 43 P.3d 526, 520 (2002)). 7 Under Washington law, “an actor ordinarily owes no duty to protect an injured party from 8 harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties.” Parrilla v. King Cty., 138 Wn.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) G.G. v. Valve Corporation
W.D. Wash. · 2020 · confidence medium
Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 43 P.3d 526, 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). 22 1 Plaintiffs allege that Valve owed them “a duty to use reasonable care to provide a 2 reliable and safe videogaming experience, and to ensure that its Steam platform was used 3 in a manner that comported with applicable law, including but not limited to” the CPA 4 and the Gambling Act, as well as “a duty of reasonable care to stop Skins gambling.” 5 (Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Washington, Respondent,
v.
Robert D. SUMMERS, Appellant.
26150-2-II.
Court of Appeals of Washington.
Feb 15, 2002.
43 P.3d 526
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

On January 8, 2002, The Washington Supreme Court granted the petition for review of our opinion, State v. Robert D. Summers, 107 Wash.App. 373, 28 P.3d 780 (2001), review granted, 145 Wash.2d 1015, 37 P.3d 289 (2002), and remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Smith, 144 Wash.2d 665, 30 P.3d 1245 (2001). Upon reconsideration, we agree that a portion of the section on calculation of the offender score should be withdrawn and replaced. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the sentence "We affirm." which appears on the first page of our opinion, 107 Wash.App. 373, [28 P.3d 780] is hereby deleted. The following sentence is substituted in its place.

We affirm the conviction, but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. It is further

ORDERED that the second and third paragraphs[1] of the section entitled "Offender Score" on the last page of our opinion, 107 Wash.App. at 390, [28 P.3d at 788], are hereby deleted and the following paragraph is substituted in their place.

Summers is correct. The trial court should not have considered the juvenile convictions for crimes committed before he was 15. State v. Smith, 144 Wash.2d 665, 675, 30 P.3d 1245 (2001) (previously washed out juvenile adjudications are not considered in calculating offender score).

The conviction is affirmed, but sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 The paragraph begins: "We rejected the identical challenge in State v. Hendricks...."