Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP - PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION LAWYERS

Issaquah Law Group - Personal Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup

One new opinion of of Division I of the Court of Appeals today:

State v. Crittenden, Nos. 59809-1-I, 60581-0-I
A car thief objected to an instruction on lesser included as between 1st degree theft and 2d degree taking a motor vehicle without permission. The court also refused the defendant's instruction on the definition of intent to deprive.

The court reasoned that the additional element of motor vehicle was not present in 1st degree theft, and thus could not be a lesser included. Do you think this was the intention of the legislature? To allow both to be charged. Probably not. I understand the strict application of the Workman test obviously works against this.

Maybe its time to revisit Workman and disclude elements that only narrow the scope to which the law applies (cars instead of all property).

If you're criminal defense or prosecution and would like to weigh in, please do so.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.