sanction violation in Washington

2024Rivers, 145 Wn.2d at 686 (citing Burnet, 131 Wn.2d at 494 ). 4 Gordon counters that he did raise these factors by attaching a law review article as an exhibit to Brian Cameron’s declaration in opposition to Robinhood’s motion for attorney fees.

2014Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484,494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997); Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677,688, 690 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006).

2006Because CR 26(g), the discovery sanctions rule, was adopted to specifically address the type of conduct involved here, it, rather than CR 11, CR 37 or the inherent power of the court, is applicable in the present case.” 122 Wn.2d at 340 .

2006Because CR 26(g), the discovery sanctions rule, was adopted to specifically address the type of conduct involved here, it, rather than CR 11, CR 37 or the inherent power of the court, is applicable in the present case." 122 Wash.2d at 340 , 858 P.2d 1054 .

2014Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484,494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997); Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677,688, 690 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006).

2011Id. at 686, 41 P.3d 1175 ; Burnet, 131 Wash.2d at 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 . ¶ 21 In Rivers, the trial court had similarly granted dismissal as a discovery sanction, following the plaintiff's failure to adequately respond to discovery requests. 145 Wash.2d at 677 , 41 P.3d 1175 .

2006Heinmiller, 127 Wn.2d at 609 .

2006Heinmiller, 127 Wash.2d at 609 , 903 P.2d 433 .

2006Woodward, 116 Wash.App. at 703 , 67 P.3d 530 . ¶ 24 Here, the original judgment and sentences required Dalseg and Cestnik to serve their sentences in partial confinement.

2006Woodward, 116 Wn.

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wash.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wash.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wash.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wn.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wn.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wn.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wn.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wn.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wn.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wn.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wn.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wn.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wash.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wash.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wash.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wn.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wn.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wn.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wn.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wn.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wn.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2003In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wn.2d 475, 498 , 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Plumb, 126 Wn.2d 334, 337 , 892 P.2d 739 (1995); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wn.2d 150, 163 , 896 P.2d 1281 (1995).

2001A personal restraint petitioner must do more than simply make a prima facie case of actual prejudice — he “ ‘must show that more likely than not he was prejudiced by the error.’ ” Id. at 297 (quoting In re Pers.

2001A personal restraint petitioner must do more than simply make a prima facie case of actual prejudice—he "`must show that more likely than not he was prejudiced by the error.'" Id. at 297 , 678 P.2d 323 (quoting In re Hagler, 97 Wash.2d 818, 825-26 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982)).

1999Id.

1999Id.

1998State v. Hutchinson (Hutchinson II ), 85 Wash. App. 726, 738 , 938 P.2d 336 (1997) (citing State v. Gonzalez, 110 Wash.2d 738, 745 , 757 P.2d 925 (1988)).

1998State v. Hutchinson (Hutchinson II), 85 Wn.

2024Casper, 119 Wn.

2021Thus, we hold that when considering the extraordinary remedy of excluding witnesses or other evidence as a sanction for violation of a local rule requiring disclosure of witness identities, a trial court should consider four factors identified in Hutchinson: “(1) the effectiveness of less severe sanctions; (2) the impact of witness preclusion on the evidence at trial and the outcome of the case; (3) the extent to which the witness’s testimony will surprise or prejudice the State; and (4) whether the violation was willful or in bad faith.” Venegas, 155 Wn.

2018Sanction The hearing officer recommended and a unanimous Board concluded that Cottingham should be suspended from practicing law for 18 months. "[T]he ultimate responsibility for determining the nature of discipline rests with this court." In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Noble, 100 Wn.2d 88, 95 , 667 P.2d 608 (1983).

2018Sanction The hearing officer recommended and a unanimous Board concluded that Cottingham should be suspended from practicing law for 18 months. "[T]he ultimate responsibility for determining the nature of discipline rests with this court." In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Noble, 100 Wn.2d 88, 95 , 667 P.2d 608 (1983).

2017Id.

2014Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484,494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997); Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677,688, 690 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006).

2006Woodward, 116 Wash.App. at 703 , 67 P.3d 530 . ¶ 24 Here, the original judgment and sentences required Dalseg and Cestnik to serve their sentences in partial confinement.

2006Heinmiller, 127 Wash.2d at 609 , 903 P.2d 433 .

2001A personal restraint petitioner must do more than simply make a prima facie case of actual prejudice—he "`must show that more likely than not he was prejudiced by the error.'" Id. at 297 , 678 P.2d 323 (quoting In re Hagler, 97 Wash.2d 818, 825-26 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982)).

2001A personal restraint petitioner must do more than simply make a prima facie case of actual prejudice—he "`must show that more likely than not he was prejudiced by the error.'" Id. at 297 , 678 P.2d 323 (quoting In re Hagler, 97 Wash.2d 818, 825-26 , 650 P.2d 1103 (1982)).

1998State v. Hutchinson (Hutchinson II ), 85 Wash. App. 726, 738 , 938 P.2d 336 (1997) (citing State v. Gonzalez, 110 Wash.2d 738, 745 , 757 P.2d 925 (1988)).

1998State v. Hutchinson (Hutchinson II ), 85 Wash. App. 726, 738 , 938 P.2d 336 (1997) (citing State v. Gonzalez, 110 Wash.2d 738, 745 , 757 P.2d 925 (1988)).

1989Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Ctr. v. Holman, 107 Wn.2d 693, 706-07 , 732 P.2d 974 (1987).

1989Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Ctr. v. Holman, 107 Wn.2d 693, 706-07 , 732 P.2d 974 (1987).

1986State v. Lewis, 19 Wn.

1979State v. Glasper, 12 Wn.

1978State v. Stamm, 16 Wn.

1973State v. Cory, 62 Wn.2d 371 , 382 P.2d 1019 , 5 A.L.R.3d 1352 (1963).

1973State v. Cory, 62 Wn.2d 371 , 382 P.2d 1019 , 5 A.L.R.3d 1352 (1963).

1914The supreme court of California in In re Danford, 157 Cal. 425 , 108 Pac. 322 , referring to such rule noticed in former decisions of that court, said: “At any rate, it was limited to cases in which the accusation was without the sanction of a bar association or of some responsible public officer.” This proceeding, as we have noticed, has the sanction of the Seattle bar association and is prosecuted by the prosecuting attorney of King county.

1914The supreme court of California in In re Danford, 157 Cal. 425 , 108 Pac. 322 , referring to such rule noticed in former decisions of that court, said: “At any rate, it was limited to cases in which the accusation was without the sanction of a bar association or of some responsible public officer.” This proceeding, as we have noticed, has the sanction of the Seattle bar association and is prosecuted by the prosecuting attorney of King county.