Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Carlstrom v. Hanline, 990 P.2d 986 (2000)

Citation
Carlstrom v. Hanline, 990 P.2d 986 (2000)
Parent Document
Carlstrom v. Hanline, 990 P.2d 986 (2000)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
2000-01-10

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text

671 chars
Hanline alleges that the statutory procedure prejudiced him. He says that the short notice prevented the preparation and introduction of witnesses at the hearing. For example, Hanline was unable to introduce testimony from a prior resident of the premises. However, this witness’ declaration was available for the hearing and his live testimony would also be available at trial. Hanline received adequate notice and opportunity to hire counsel. Although Hanline claims that a 20-minute hearing is unfair because it is too short, he cites no specific examples of arguments he failed to raise because of the time constraints. The show cause hearing is not unconstitutional.