|
|
|
|
Jun. 16, 2009 - 37329-7 - Activate, Inc., Appellant V. State Of Wa Dept Of Revenue, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=373297MAJ Nov. 13, 2008 - 26555-2 - City of Union Gap, et al v. Washington State Department of Ecology
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=265552MAJ Oct. 16, 2008 - 80204-1 - Lane v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=802041MAJ Aug. 14, 2008 - 79661-1 - Tesoro Ref. & Mktg. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=796611MAJ Jul. 21, 2008 - 60301-9 - Group Health Cooperative, Resp/cross-app. vs. City Of Seattle, App/cross-resp.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=603019MAJ Jul. 21, 2008 - 59942-9 - Estate Of Patrick N. Connelly, Appellant V. Snohomish County Public Utility Dist. #1, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=599429MAJ Jul. 15, 2008 - 26443-2 - William R. Swinehart, et ux v. City of Spokane
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=264432MAJ Jun. 26, 2008 - 79702-1 - Cmty. Telecable of Seattle v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=797021MAJ Jun. 19, 2008 - 26152-2 - City of Wenatchee v. Travis B. Owens
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=261522MAJ Jun. 19, 2008 - 79878-8 - Spain v. Employment Sec. Dep't
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=798788MAJ May. 20, 2008 - 35883-2 - G-p Gypsum Corporation, Appellant V State Of Washington, Department Of Revenue, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=358832MAJ Mar. 25, 2008 - 36120-5 - Whidbey General Hospital, Appellant V. Dept. Of Revenue, State Of Wa, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=361205MAJ Mar. 18, 2008 - 35829-8 - Jill Doty-fielding, Appellant V Town Of South Prairie, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=358298MAJ Mar. 11, 2008 - 35608-2 - Storedahl Properties Llc, Appellant, V. Clark County, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=356082MAJ Feb. 21, 2008 - 76954-1 - Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=769541MAJ Feb. 21, 2008 - 76954-1 - Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle (Concurrence
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=769541Co1 Feb. 21, 2008 - 76954-1 - Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=769541Di1 Dec. 13, 2007 - 79222-4 - Locke v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=792224MAJ Nov. 15, 2007 - 77253-3 - Lindeman v. Kelso Sch. Dist. No. 458 (Concurrence/Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=772533CP1 Nov. 15, 2007 - 77253-3 - Lindeman v. Kelso Sch. Dist. No. 458 (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=772533Co1 Nov. 15, 2007 - 77253-3 - Lindeman v. Kelso Sch. Dist. No. 458
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=772533MAJ Nov. 15, 2007 - 79951-2 - Densley v. Dep't of Ret. Sys. (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=799512Di1 Nov. 15, 2007 - 79951-2 - Densley v. Dep't of Ret. Sys.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=799512MAJ Nov. 8, 2007 - 25316-3 - City of Spokane v. Lawrence J. Rothwell (Dissent) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=253163DIS Nov. 8, 2007 - 25316-3 - City of Spokane v. Lawrence J. Rothwell
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=253163MAJ Nov. 8, 2007 - 79542-8 - Wright v. Terrell
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=795428MAJ Nov. 8, 2007 - 78844-8 - Wash. Citizens Action of Wash. v. State (Dissent)http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=788448Di1 Nov. 8, 2007 - 78844-8 - Wash. Citizens Action of Wash. v. State
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=788448MAJ
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The State Supreme Court ruled that I-747, the voter-approved property tax limit, is unconstitutional.
"We hold that I-747 violates article II, section 37 of the Washington Constitution."
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Docket Number: 78844-8
Title of Case: Wash. Citizens Action of Wash. v. State
File Date: 11/08/2007
Oral Argument Date: 05/08/2007
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=788448MAJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement from Governor Gregoire on Overturn of I-747
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Sep. 17, 2007 - 54354-7 - Randall W. Leskovar, Appellants V. Gregory J. Nickels, Respondent http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=543547MAJ Sep. 7, 2007 - 80430-3 - Futurewise v. Reed
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=804303MAJ Aug. 30, 2007 - 79909-1 - Qwest Corp. v. City of Bellevue
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=799091MAJ Aug. 23, 2007 - 24322-2 - Jeff Zink, Et Ux v. City Of Mesa
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=243222MAJ Aug. 16, 2007 - 79966-1 - Delaney v. Bd. of Spokane County Comm'rs
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=799661MAJ Aug. 14, 2007 - 34808-0 - Paul W. Post, Appellant, V. City Of Tacoma, Et Al., Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=348080MAJ Aug. 14, 2007 - 34943-4 - Cowlitz County, Respondent V. L. Carlyle Martin Etal, Appellants
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=349434MAJ Aug. 9, 2007 - 79971-7 - Morin v. Harrell
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=799717MAJ Aug. 2, 2007 - 78449-3 - Burns v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=784493MAJ
Aug. 2, 2007 - 78449-3 - Burns v. City of Seattle (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=784493Di1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna's statement on the Washington State Supreme Court's decision today in Madison v. State
News Release
Issued: July 26, 2007
Olympia... Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna's statement on the Washington State Supreme Court's decision today in Madison v. State. This was the first case argued by Attorney General McKenna in front of the Washington State Supreme Court. Attorney General McKenna was assisted by Deputy Solicitor General Jeff Even.
"We commend the Supreme Court for making the right decision today. This is an important decision in favor of state's authority to secure the integrity of the electoral process," said Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna.
"Our state Legislature has determined felons should complete all the terms of their sentences before winning back the right to vote. It is the Legislature's place, not the court's, to decide whether or not to change state law," added Reed.
"The Supreme Court's decision upheld our argument that Washington's disenfranchisement scheme did not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution," McKenna said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul. 23, 2007 - 58113-9 - Seattle Popular Monorail Project, Res. V. Htk Management L.l.c., App. http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=581139MAJ Jul. 16, 2007 - 58296-8 - City Of Woodinville, Respondent / Cross App. V. Seattle Housing And Resource, Appellant / Cross Res.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=582968MAJ Jul. 10, 2007 - 35067-0 - Paul Matheson, Appellant V Christine Gregoire, Et Al, Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=350670MAJ Jun. 28, 2007 - 25095-4 - Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. Spokane County et al
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=250954MAJ Jun. 26, 2007 - 34411-4 - Dragonslayer, Inc., Appellant V. Washington State Gambling Commission, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=344114MAJ Jun. 25, 2007 - 58249-6 - Randy Brevick, Appellant V. City Of Seattle, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=582496MAJ Jun. 14, 2007 - 24875-5 - Valley Environmental Laboratory LLC v. Yakima County v. Bennett K. Osborne
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=248755MAJ Jun. 5, 2007 - 25457-7 - J. Paul Chase v. Spokane Valley Fire Department, Civil Service Commission
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=254577MAJ Jun. 5, 2007 - 35264-8 - Scott Alprin, Appellant V. City Of Tacoma & Tacoma Public Utilities, Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=352648MAJ May. 30, 2007 - 35267-2 - Kitsap Co V Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hrgs, Et Al
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=352672MAJ
May. 22, 2007 - 34729-6 - Ranger Insurance Company, Appellant V. Pierce County, Et Al, Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=347296MAJ
May. 17, 2007 - 24942-5 - Tony Mega v. Whitworth College
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=249425MAJ
|
|
|
May. 17, 2007 - 24845-3 - Robert Schryvers and Myrna Schryvers v. Coulee Community Hospital, d/b/a St. Rita's Care Home
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=248453MAJ
May. 7, 2007 - 57495-7 - Elea D. Parrilla, Appellant V. King County, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=574957MAJ
May. 3, 2007 - 78575-9 - City of Medina v. Primm
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=785759MAJ
May. 3, 2007 - 78575-9 - City of Medina v. Primm (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=785759Co1
May. 3, 2007 - 78575-9 - City of Medina v. Primm (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=785759Di1
Apr. 26, 2007 - 77966-0 - San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=779660MAJ
Apr. 26, 2007 - 77966-0 - San Juan County v. No New Gas Tax (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=779660Co1
Apr. 26, 2007 - 78579-1 - Sanders v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=785791MAJ
Apr. 26, 2007 - 78579-1 - Sanders v. City of Seattle (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=785791Co1
Apr. 26, 2007 - 78579-1 - Sanders v. City of Seattle (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=785791Di1
Apr. 26, 2007 - 78579-1 - Sanders v. City of Seattle (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=785791Di2
Apr. 12, 2007 - 77167-7 - Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=771677MAJ
Apr. 12, 2007 - 77167-7 - Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=771677Di1
Apr. 3, 2007 - 34172-7 - Thurston County, Petitioner V. Western Wa Growth Management Hearings Board, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=341727MAJ
Mar. 26, 2007 - 57253-9 - City Of Arlington, Appellant V. Central Puget Sound Growth, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=572539MAJ
Mar. 20, 2007 - 34418-1 - Thurston County & Thurston County Board Of Health, Appellant V. Jeff Griffin, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=344181MAJ
Mar. 11, 2007 - 51791-1 - City Of Auburn, Respondent/cross App V Teresa A. Hedlund, Appellant/cross Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=517911MAJ
Feb. 21, 2007 - 34743-1 - Home Builders Assoc Of Kitsap Co. Etal, Appellants V. City Of Bainbridge Island, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=347431MAJ
Feb. 13, 2007 - 24650-7 - Jeff Zink and Donna Zink v. City of Mesa
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=246507MAJ
Feb. 8, 2007 - 77590-7 - Sleasman v. City of Lacey
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=775907MAJ
Feb. 6, 2007 - 34340-1 - City Of Tacoma, Respondent V. Michael P. Price, Appellant
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=343401MAJ
Feb. 6, 2007 - 34881-1 - Clallam Co Citizens For Safe Drinking Water Et Al, App, V City Of Port Angeles Et Al, Resp.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=348811MAJ
Feb. 6, 2007 - 33427-5 - Pud No 1 Of Clark County, Petitioner V. Pollution Control Hearings Board Etal, Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=334275MAJ
Feb. 5, 2007 - 57112-5 - Armen Yousoufian, Appellant V. The Office Of Ron Sims, Et Al., Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=571125MAJ
Feb. 1, 2007 - 76595-2 - Pham v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765952MAJ
Feb. 1, 2007 - 76595-2 - Pham v. City of Seattle (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765952Di1
Feb. 1, 2007 - 76755-6 - Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County v. N. Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., L.L.C.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=767556MAJ
Feb. 1, 2007 - 76755-6 - Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County v. N. Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., L.L.C. (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=767556Co1
Feb. 1, 2007 - 76755-6 - Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County v. N. Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., L.L.C. (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=767556Di1
Feb. 1, 2007 - 76755-6 - Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County v. N. Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., L.L.C. (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=767556Di2
Feb. 1, 2007 - 76755-6 - Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant County v. N. Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., L.L.C. (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=767556Di3
Jan. 25, 2007 - 24411-3 - State of Washington, Dept. of Agriculture v. Approx. 7 Acres of Bing and Lapon Cherries, et al
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=244113MAJ
Jan. 22, 2007 - 57151-6 - Clear Channel Outdoor, Appellant V. Seattle Popular Monorail Authority, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=571516MAJ
Jan. 18, 2007 - 77888-4 - Okeson v. City of Seattle
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=778884MAJ
Jan. 18, 2007 - 77888-4 - Okeson v. City of Seattle (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=778884Co1
Jan. 18, 2007 - 77888-4 - Okeson v. City of Seattle (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=778884Di1
Jan. 16, 2007 - 57359-4 - Thomas A. Clark, Respondent V. City Of Kent, Appellant http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=573594MAJ
Jan. 9, 2007 - 35084-0 - Spokane & Eastern Lawyer, Appellant V. Linda G. Tompkins, Et Al., Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=350840MAJ
|
|
|
Dec. 28, 2006 - 24701-5 - Evans & Son, Inc. v. City of Yakima
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=247015MAJ
Dec. 26, 2006 - 57435-3 - Stephanie Lewis, Appellant V. Whatcom County, Respondent http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=574353MAJ
Dec. 21, 2006 - 76581-2 - 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765812MAJ
Dec. 21, 2006 - 76581-2 - 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765812Co1
Dec. 21, 2006 - 76581-2 - 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765812Co2
Dec. 21, 2006 - 76581-2 - 1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765812Di1
Dec. 19, 2006 - 24996-4 - Richard Adams, et al v. City of Spokane
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=249964MAJ
Dec. 19, 2006 - 24198-0 - S. A. H., ex rel v. State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=241980MAJ
Dec. 19, 2006 - 33856-4 - Joyce Timson, Appellant V. Pierce County Fire District 15 Etal, Respondents-cross-appellant
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=338564MAJ
Dec. 18, 2006 - 57502-3 - Ed Herbert, App. vs. Wa State Public Disclosure Commission, Resp.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=575023MAJ
Dec. 14, 2006 - 24487-3 - Anthony Sam v. Okanogan County Sheriff's Office
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=244873MAJ
Dec. 14, 2006 - 24487-3 - Anthony Sam v. Okanogan County Sheriff's Office (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=244873DIS
Dec. 14, 2006 - 23554-8 - Welch Foods, Inc. v. Benton County
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=235548MAJ
Dec. 11, 2006 - 57491-4 - Community Telecable Of Seattle, Respondent V. City Of Seattle, Appellant
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=574914MAJ
Dec. 7, 2006 - 76534-1 - Pierce County v. State
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765341MAJ
Dec. 7, 2006 - 76534-1 - Pierce County v. State (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=765341Di1
Dec. 5, 2006 - 34341-0 - Lee Holder Etux, Appellants V. City Of Vancouver, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=343410MAJ
Nov. 21, 2006 - 24128-9 - Rene Woodall, et al v. Freeman School District http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=241289MAJ
Nov. 16, 2006 - 77723-3 - City of Spokane v. County of Spokane
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=777233MAJ
Nov. 9, 2006 - 78578-3 - Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Boundary Review Bd.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=785783MAJ Nov. 9, 2006 - 78578-3 - Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Boundary Review Bd. (Dissent) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=785783Di1
Oct. 30, 2006 - 56807-8 - Maple Valley Prof. Fire Fighters Local 3062, Apps. vs. King County Fire Protection #43, Resps
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=568078MAJ Oct. 26, 2006 - 24593-4 - Harvey B. Harden v. City of Spokane
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=245934MAJ
Oct. 26, 2006 - 77459-5 - Scoccolo Construction, Inc. v. City of Renton
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=774595MAJ
Oct. 26, 2006 - 77459-5 - Scoccolo Construction, Inc. v. City of Renton (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=774595Co1
Oct. 19, 2006 - 76527-8 - Supervalu Holdings, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor and Indus. http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=765278MAJ
Oct. 19, 2006 - 76527-8 - Supervalu Holdings, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor and Indus. (Dissent) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=765278Di1
Oct. 17, 2006 - 33750-9 - Alvin Alexanderson, Etal V. Wwgm Hearings Bd., Clark County, Etal, Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=337509MAJ
Oct. 12, 2006 - 76109-4 - Pac. Nw. Shooting Park v. City of Sequim
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=761094MAJ Oct. 12, 2006 - 76109-4 - Pac. Nw. Shooting Park v. City of Sequim (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=761094Di1 Oct. 12, 2006 - 76109-4 - Pac. Nw. Shooting Park v. City of Sequim (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=761094Di2
Oct. 5, 2006 - 76738-6 - City of Fircrest v. Jensen
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=767386MAJ Oct. 5, 2006 - 76738-6 - City of Fircrest v. Jensen (Concurrence) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=767386Co1 Oct. 5, 2006 - 76738-6 - City of Fircrest v. Jensen (Dissent) http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=767386Di1
Oct. 5, 2006 - 24199-8 - Yakima County V. William G. Evans, et ux, et al
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=241998MAJ
Sep. 12, 2006 - 24542-0 - Robert and Cecilia Richards v. City of Pullman
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=245420MAJ
Aug. 31, 2006 - 75889-1 - David Koenig, v. City of Des Moines, et al. (49656-5,49693-0 & 51918-2-I consol) (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=758891DI1
Aug. 31, 2006 - 75889-1 - David Koenig, v. City of Des Moines, et al. (49656-5,49693-0 & 51918-2-I consol)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=758891MAJ
Aug. 28, 2006 - 56341-6 - Ralph R. Mason, Appellant v. King County, et al., Respondents
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=563416MAJ
Aug. 10, 2006 - 76553-7 - LEWIS COUNTY VS WESTERN WA GROWTH MGMT HEARINGS BOARD (Concurrence/Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=765537IP1
Aug. 10, 2006 - 76553-7 - LEWIS COUNTY VS WESTERN WA GROWTH MGMT HEARINGS BOARD
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=765537MAJ
Aug. 10, 2006 - 78293-8 - QWEST CORPORATION V. CITY OF KENT (Concurrence)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=782938CO1
Aug. 10, 2006 - 78293-8 - QWEST CORPORATION V. CITY OF KENT
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=782938MAJ
Jul. 13, 2006 - 74987-6 - City of Sequim v. Paul Malkasian (Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=749876DI1
Jul. 13, 2006 - 74987-6 - City of Sequim v. Paul Malkasian (Concurrence/Dissent)
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=749876IP1
Jul. 13, 2006 - 74987-6 - City of Sequim v. Paul Malkasian
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=749876MAJ
Jun. 27, 2006 - 33446-1 - American Safety Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant v. City of Olympia, Respondent
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=334461MAJ
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. West Central Community Development
June 22, 2006
Spokane Research & Defense Fund (SRDF) sued a private non-profit corporation, the West Central Community Development Association (Association), and the City of Spokane (City), for allegedly violating the Washington Public Disclosure Act (PDA). The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint, ruling the Association was not the functional equivalent of a government agency under Telford v. Thurston County Board of Commissioners, 95 Wn. App. 149, 974 P.2d 886 (1999). SRDF appeals the ruling and requests attorney fees. Because the Association does not come within the PDA definition of a public agency, and our Telford balancing reaches the same result as the trial court, we affirm and deny attorney fees.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Lillian M. Peste, et al, Appellants v. Mason Co., Respondent
June 14, 2006
Lillian M. Peste, Sharon Johnston, and Bank of America, as trustee of the Fred G. Peste Trust, and Lillian M. Peste, individually (collectively Peste), appeal Mason County's denial of a rezone request. Peste asserts that (1) Mason County's comprehensive plan and development regulations are void because Mason County adopted them without complying with statutory notice and public participation procedures; (2) Mason County's comprehensive plan and development regulations violate Peste's substantive due process rights; (3) Mason County's comprehensive plan and development regulations constitute a regulatory taking of estate property; and (4) substantial evidence does not support the Mason County Board of Commissioners' (Board) findings. We affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Seattle Mortgage Company, Respondent v. City of Tacoma, PUD, et al., Appellant
June 14, 2006
City of Tacoma Public Utilities Department (Tacoma PUD) appeals the trial court's summary judgment order in favor of Seattle Mortgage Company. Tacoma PUD argues that (1) its lien against Daisy Gray'sreal property was not extinguished by Seattle Mortgage's foreclosure actionfollowing Gray's death; and (2) the trial court erred in failing torecognize a constitutional, statutory, or equitable basis for Tacoma PUD todeny electrical services to the real property until its energy conservationimprovement loan is repaid. We affirm, holding that the trial courtproperly granted summary judgment to Seattle Mortgage as a matter of bothlaw and equity.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Yakima County Law Enforcement Officers Guild v. Yakima County
May 30, 2006
While Deputy Sheriff Jan Bartleson's disciplinary investigation was in progress, Yakima County Sheriff Ken Irwin discharged her on 'fit for duty' grounds. Both Deputy Bartleson and the Yakima County Law Enforcement Guild grieved the discharge under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), alleging she was fit for duty and her medical discharge was a pretext for Sheriff Irwin's disciplinary concerns. After the County declined to arbitrate, the Guild sued to compel arbitration. The court summarily interpreted the CBA to require arbitration, but denied attorney fees for the Guild. The County and the Guild cross-appealed. We affirm, except for leaving the procedural attorney fee dispute to the arbitrator.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Jill R. Wise v. City of Chelan
May 30, 2006
This is a suit against the City of Chelan (City) by its former municipal court judge for compensation owed on the contract for her four-year term of office. The City eliminated its municipal court half way through that four-year term. The trial judge awarded Ms. Wise the unpaid compensation due on her contract, but denied her claim for attorney fees. We agree that she is entitled to be paid for the unexpired term of her appointment. And we conclude that her claim is 'salary' for purposes of Washington labor law. She is, therefore, entitled to her attorney fees.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Michael Fort v. State of Washington, Department of Ecology
May 23, 2006
Michael D. Fort received a notice of regulation from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) for exceeding the amount of water allotted to him under a 1921 water rights adjudication decree. He appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board (the Board), seeking a favorable interpretation of the decree or application of the common law futile call doctrine. The Board granted summary judgment in favor of Ecology. The superior court denied his petition for judicial review. We conclude that the Board's decision was proper under RCW 34.05.570(3) and affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - JEFFREY TAYLOR, GUARDIAN OF ZACHARY TAYLOR, APP VS ENUMCLAW SCHOOL DISTRICT, RESP
May 1, 2006
Jeffrey Taylor, on behalf of his son Zachary Taylor, appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Enumclaw School District (District) on his 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim. Mr. Taylor argues that Zachary has a property and liberty interest in participating in interscholastic sports. When the District imposed academic and athletic suspensions, he contends they violated Zachary's Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of his right to confront his accusers, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and review the evidence against him. In order to prevail on a section 1983 claim, Zachary must prove that the District deprived him of a constitutional right. Because students do not have a property or liberty interest in participation in interscholastic sports, Zachary cannot establish a violation of his civil rights. We affirm the trial court.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Russell Stiefel et al, Appellants v. The CIty of Kent, et al., Respondents
April 24, 2006
The provision of fire protection services is a governmental rather than a propriety function. The public duty doctrine therefore bars any claims for the negligent failure to supply water for firefighting purposes or the negligent failure to enforce fire code provisions. Because appellants Russell and Bonnie Stiefel and United Services Automobile Association (the Stiefels) failed to establish any material factual dispute as to the application of the public duty doctrine, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of their claims against the City of Kent, the Kent Fire Department, and the Kent Public Works Department (the City) and against King County and the King County Fire Marshall (the County).
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - James E. Davis, et ux v. Michael Taylor, et ux
April 20, 2006
State and county right-to-farm laws insulate farmers from liability for nuisances that preexist residential development. Here, after a neighboring residential development had been well established, the defendant farmers changed their orchard from an apple orchard to a cherry orchard and then started using loud guns to scare away birds. The trial judge concluded that Yakima County's version of the right-to-farm law accommodated this new noisy activity because the farm preexisted the residential development. We conclude that it is the farming practice or activity that controls, not the fact that a farm predates development. And we therefore reverse and remand for entry of judgment for the homeowners enjoining the activity.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - James R. Cary etal, Appellants v. Mason County etal, Respondents
April 18, 2006
James R. Cary appeals the trial court's dismissal of his action for declaratory judgment, arguing that a Mason County ordinance, adopted as a 'special assessment,' is actually an invalid and unconstitutional 'property tax.' The lower court ruled that the 'reasonable time' for challenging the ordinance by a declaratory judgment action was 30 days and that Cary's action was therefore time-barred because he waited six months to file. We disagree, holding that Cary's action is analogous to actions to recover any tax levied or assessed under RCW 84.68.060. Such actions must be commenced by June 30 of the year following the year the tax became payable. Under that rule, Cary's complaint was timely; accordingly, we reverse and remand.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Northwest Pipeline Corporation v. Adams County, et al
April 13, 2006
Counties in this state tax the assets of utilities based on property values determined by the Washington State Department of Revenue. Northwest Pipeline Corporation paid its property taxes under protest and then sued for a partial refund for the 2001 tax year. The superior court upheld the Department's calculations of value and affirmed the property tax assessments of the counties. Northwest Pipeline appeals. We conclude that the findings of fact underlying the trial court's decision are well supported by this record, and we therefore affirm.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Premera, etal Petitioners v. Mike Kreidler, Respondent
April 4, 2006
Premera, Premera Blue Cross, and their affiliated companies (collectively Premera) sought to reorganize Premera's holding company system under a for-profit parent and to convert the nonprofit affiliates to for-profit companies. Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler (Commissioner) disapproved Premera's proposal. Premera now seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's ruling, arguing that: (1) he improperly interpreted the Health Carrier Holding Company Act (Health Carrier HCA); (2) he erred by considering Premera's proposal under the Insurer Holding Company Act (Insurer HCA); (3) he erred in applying a fair market value test to the proposed conversion; (4) he erred in concluding that the conversion will hurt subscribers and the insurance- buying public; and (5) he improperly failed to consider the benefits of Premera's proposed conversion.
We hold that the Commissioner did not err in assessing the benefits of Premera's proposal and in rejecting its conversion plan on the grounds that the plan as a whole was unfair and unreasonable to subscribers, not in the public interest, and likely to be hazardous or prejudicial to the insurance-buying public. Finding no error, we affirm the Commissioner's decision.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Estate of Alice M. Bowers: Alison Berghmans, App. vs. Museum of Flight, Resp.
April 3, 2006
Alice Bowers in her 1991 Will (1991 Will) left a valuable airplane and airplane memorabilia collection to the Museum of Flight and left the remainder of her estate in trust for her daughter, Alison Berghmans. In April 2004, Alice retained a lawyer to revoke the power of attorney she had given her daughter and recover the items her daughter had taken from her safety deposit box including the original 1991 Will. In August 2004, Alice asked her attorney to draft a new will (2004 Will). Alice reiterated her intent to leave the airplane collection to the Museum of Flight, but wanted to eliminate the trust to her daughter and instead leave the remainder of her estate to her cousins with a $500 gift to her daughter. At Alice's request, the lawyer mailed the 2004 Will to her in September 2004 so Alice could execute it at home. When Alice died three months later, the lawyer found the 2004 Will, but it was not executed. The lawyer could not locate the original 1991 Will.
Alison challenges the superior court decision to admit the 1991 Will to probate under RCW 11.20.070 and the sufficiency of the Museum of Flight's Petition to admit the 1991 Will. We conclude the Museum met its burden of proving that the 1991 Will was "lost or destroyed under circumstances such that the loss or destruction does not have the effect of revoking the will" under RCW 11.20.070(1). Because clear, cogent, and convincing evidence establishes Alice did not intend to die intestate and did not intend to leave the airplane collection to her daughter, the doctrine of dependant relative revocation rebuts the presumption that the lost or destroyed 1991 Will was revoked. In addition, the Petition provided adequate notice to the parties that the Museum of Flight was seeking to admit the 1991 Will to probate under the lost or destroyed will and probate statutes. We affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - State of Washington v. Richard Charles Esquivel
March 30, 2006
Lisa Orr obtained a series of restraining orders against Richard Esquivel in the Tribal Court of the Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation (tribal court). None of these orders contained a warning that the violation of the order could be punishable as a crime. In August 2004, Mr. Esquivel was charged in superior court with six felony counts for violating the tribal order. Mr. Esquivel moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the tribal restraining order did not contain the warning required under RCW 26.50.035(1)(c). The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges. The State appeals, contending the tribal order should have been afforded full faith and credit. We agree, and reverse.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Dept. of L & I, State of WA, Appellant v. Mark P. Vanhess, Respondent
March 28, 2006
The Department of Labor and Industries (Department) appeals the trial court's reversal of its denial of a recalculation of Mark P. VanHess's time loss compensation rate to reflect the value of health care formerly paid by his employer. The Department allowed VanHess's claim for an industrial injury he sustained in December 1996. In September 1998, the Department calculated VanHess's time loss compensation rate without including employer-provided health care benefits that VanHess received at the time of his industrial injury. VanHess had stopped receiving the health care benefits before the Department issued its order calculating time loss compensation, but VanHess did not appeal the Department's order within the prescribed 60 day period. Rather, in 2002, he requested recalculation of his time loss compensation rate to include those benefits. The Department denied the request and VanHess appealed to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA), which affirmed the Department's decision. VanHess then appealed to Grays Harbor County Superior Court. The trial court reversed the BIIA's decision and the Department timely appeals.
We reverse the trial court's decision and reinstate the BIIA's September 10, 2003 decision and order affirming (1) that a time loss compensation calculation is final if a request for reconsideration or an appeal is not filed within 60 days of its issuance, and (2) that a claimant may not show a 'change of circumstances' under RCW 51.28.040 based solely on a new judicial interpretation of RCW 51.08.178.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Washington Shell Fish Inc., Appellant v. Pierce County, Respondent
March 28, 2006
Washington Shell Fish (WSF) appeals the superior court's affirmance of Pierce County's orders to cease and desist planting and harvesting geoducks without shoreline permits and to cease and desist working in eelgrass beds without authorization on 11 leased shoreline properties. WSF argues the County's orders were improper because WSF was not required to obtain a substantial shoreline development permit to engage in geoduck cultivation or to obtain County approval to work in eelgrass beds. We disagree and affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Charles Kempter, et ux v. City of Soap Lake
March 21, 2006
Charles and Phyllis Kempter sued the City of Soap Lake (City) for damages caused by a sewer backflow into their house. The City's motion for summary judgment was granted and the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the Kempters contend the City should be liable because it has absolute control over its sewer system. Because we find that the Kempters failed to produce evidence of the City's negligence, we affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - State of Washington, Respondent v. Douglas John Martin Tobin, Appellant
March 21, 2006
Douglas John Martin Tobin appeals the superior court's restitution order against him for stealing crab and geoducks from the State of Washington and Native American Tribes. He argues that (1) the declarations the expert used to estimate damages failed to meet the requirements of RCW 9A.75.085; (2) the expert did not assess damages with reasonable certainty; (3) the investigative and administrative costs the court included in the order were not sufficiently related to Tobin's criminal activity; and (4) the State had no interest in the geoducks and should not have been awarded restitution for them. We affirm, holding that Tobin waived any technical defect in the declarations; that the State proved damages with reasonable certainty; that the State was entitled to recover its investigative and administrative costs; and that the court properly awarded restitution to the State, to be allocated by agreement with the Native American Tribes.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - State of Washington v. Buckley James Perala
March 16, 2006
This case is consolidated from over 20 different actions brought by the State and Grant County (hereinafter referred to as the State). However, the allegations of error in these multiple actions all hinge on resolution of the same issues. The State in each case challenges the failure of the Grant County Superior Court judges to recuse themselves and the judges' subsequent decisions regarding compensation for court appointed counsel. The State first alleges that the trial courts abused their discretion in denying the State's motions for recusal of all Grant County Superior Court judges from any motions for approval of attorney fees for indigent defense services. Second, the State argues that the trial courts lacked authority to award attorney fees since the funds were not appropriated by law. Finally, the State claims that the fees awarded by the courts were excessive.
Although these cases were all tried separately in superior court, many of the hearings were held back to back on the same days. Because we have chosen to consolidate the appeals, we will refer to the various trial courts in the singular.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
As a preliminary matter, the State has made a motion to this court to supplement the record with various materials, including correspondence between the trial court and the Grant County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as board of county commissioners or board).
The State's original motion to supplement the record was granted by the trial court. However, the trial court appears to have believed that authority to supplement the record was limited by RAP 7.2(e). RAP 7.2(e) permits the trial court to decide postjudgment motions that are authorized by civil rules, criminal rules, or statutes. However, if the trial court's decision would change a decision then being reviewed by the appellate court, permission of the appellate court must be obtained before the trial court can enter a formal decision. RAP 7.2(e). The trial court was uncertain as to whether its decision to permit the State to supplement the record would change a decision in a case currently before this court. For this reason the trial court directed the State to seek permission from this court.
The trial court already had the inherent authority to include these supplemental materials as part of the trial record under RAP 7.2(b). Pursuant to RAP 7.2(b) the trial court has the authority to settle the record on appeal. This authority includes the authority to supplement or expand the record where it is incomplete. See RAP 7.2(b).
The trial court granted the State's motion to supplement the record by letter. This letter states that these documents were reviewed by the trial court in considering the motions for recusal. Because it was within the trial court's authority to permit these materials to be incorporated into the trial record, we permit formal entry of the trial court's decision.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Cody Soter, et al v. Cowles Publishing Company
March 9, 2006
This is a public disclosure act dispute, RCW 42.17.250-.348. A newspaper requested records of an investigation and settlement by Spokane School District No. 81 (District) following the wrongful death of a young student from anaphylactic shock. The District fed the child a peanut-laden snack lunch despite knowledge that he was allergic to peanuts. The documents requested were all generated by the District's attorneys and their investigators. The District consulted the attorneys to give advice and prepare for the anticipated wrongful death claim, which quickly followed the child's death. We conclude that the requested documents were attorney work product and affirm the refusal of the trial judge to order disclosure.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Cingular Wireless, Appellant v. Thurston County etal, Respondents
February 28, 2006
Cingular Wireless, LLC sought a special use permit to erect a cell phone tower in a rural residential area. A hearing examiner denied the permit and the Board of County Commissioners, with some modifications, affirmed the hearing examiner. Cingular appealed to the superior court under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, and the court denied the petition.
Cingular appeals, arguing that (1) the hearing examiner improperly applied general standards from the county's comprehensive plan rather than applying only specific county code provisions, (2) the determination that the tower would have an 'undue' adverse impact contravenes the Federal Telecommunications Act, and (3) substantial evidence does not support the hearing examiner's decision.
Because, under these facts, both the general standards and specific regulations on cell phone towers apply, federal law does not apply, and substantial evidence supports the decision, we affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - State of Washington v. Chad Michael Materne
February 28, 2006
Methamphetamine was found when Chad Michael Materne was searched incident to his arrest for driving while his license was suspended. On appeal of his conviction for drug possession, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the statute upon which his arrest was based, third degree driving with license suspended (DWLS3d), was declared unconstitutional in City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664, 91 P.3d 875 (2004). We conclude that because Mr. Materne has not identified the statute under which his license was suspended and the record does not reflect the information, his claim cannot be reviewed. Accordingly, we affirm.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - In re the Detention of William C. Enright
February 23, 2006
William Enright, committed as a sexually violent predator to a Special Commitment Center at McNeil Island, sought conditional release to a less restrictive alternative. Because he has been classified as a level III offender, the residential treatment center he desires to enter would not accept him. Consequently, the State successfully moved for summary judgment denial of Mr. Enright's petition. On appeal, Mr. Enright contends the trial court denied him due process by refusing to consider a challenge to his classification as a level III offender. We conclude he was not deprived of a liberty interest without due process, and affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - State of Washington v. Clarence S. Ferguson
February 23, 2006
The trial court dismissed the State's prosecution against Clarence Ferguson after suppressing controlled substance evidence found in a warrantless car trunk search and evidence it believed stemmed from that search. Here, the State mainly contends the trial court erred in granting suppression because the court misapplied the manifest necessity doctrine to a car-trunk search. While the trial court properly excised certain hearsay from the search warrant affidavit, it erred in applying the manifest necessity doctrine to the facts. Further, even excluding the car-trunk evidence, the remaining evidence is sufficient to support the search. We reverse.
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - State of Washington v. Richard Lloyd Cooper
February 23, 2006
In addition to various counts involving manufacture, possession, and delivery, a jury found Richard Cooper guilty of endangering his girl friendRs children by operating a methamphetamine manufacturing operation in the childrenRs residence. RCW 9A.42.100, the child endangerment statute, makes it a crime for a person to knowingly or intentionally expose a dependent child to methamphetamine. Cooper argues that the term SpersonT in RCW 9A.42.100 encompasses only a childRs parent, custodian, or caregiver, not him. We disagree. We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that by its plain language, RCW 9A.42.100 applies to any person who knowingly or intentionally exposes a child to methamphetamine or its ingredients.
|
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - State of Washington v. Richard Lloyd Cooper (Dissenting)
February 23, 2006
(dissenting) -- The majority concludes RCW 9A.42.100 unambiguously makes it a crime for a person to expose a third party's dependent to methamphetamine manufacture. I disagree. The plain language of RCW 9A.42.100 is at least ambiguous and, more plausibly, applies only when the custodian of a dependent person exposes that person to methamphetamine manufacture.
Richard Cooper was convicted under RCW 9A.42.100 of endangering his girl friend's two children by exposing them to methamphetamine manufacture. The children are not his dependents, and he denies any custodial relationship to them. Cooper contends his conviction is invalid because RCW 9A.42.100 applies only when the custodian of a dependent person exposes his dependent to methamphetamine manufacture.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Clint W. Dice, P.E., Respondent v. City of Montesano, Appellant
February 22, 2006
The City of Montesano appeals the trial court's decision awarding City employee Clint Dice three months' severance pay and attorney fees under his employment contract with the City. It argues that the trial court (1) did not give effect to the contract's plain meaning; (2) erred when it ruled severance pay constituted salary or wages under RCW 49.48.030; and (3) did not properly segregate its legal fee award. Dice cross-appeals, claiming the court erred when it did not grant him double damages and all his requested attorney fees, including those for discovery and negotiations incurred before he filed the lawsuit. We affirm the trial court's award of severance pay as wages and the award of attorney fees incurred in the successful contract claim. We reverse the court's denial of double damages to Dice under RCW 49.52.050 and .070. And we remand for further hearings to determine and award Dice additional fees and costs related to discovery, case preparation, and his double damages claims, but not negotiations, incurred prior to filing the lawsuit.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Bruce Letourneau, Pet. v. State of WA., Dept. of Licensing, Res.
February 21, 2006
Bruce Letourneau appeals an order affirming the suspension of his driver's license, arguing that the administrative hearing officer erred by admitting the results of his breath tests into evidence. We are asked to decide whether a breath test simulator thermometer that was certified under former WAC 448-13-0351 constitutes 'a thermometer approved of by the state toxicologist' under RCW 46.61.506(4)(a)(iv). We hold that it does, and affirm.
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - In re The Petition For Recall Of Robert Carkeek
February 16, 2006
Robert Carkeek is a Commissioner of Drainage Improvement District No. 8. Shortly after he unsuccessfully sought an antiharassment order that would have excluded two of his neighbors from drainage commission district meetings, a recall petition was filed against him. The trial judge found all but one of the many charges factually or legally insufficient, rewrote the only surviving charge, and approved that charge 'as revised.'
We find the allegation that Commissioner Carkeek committed misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office unsupported by the record. We also find that he had a legally cognizable justification for seeking the antiharassment order. Accordingly, we find that the charge is factually and legally insufficient, and reverse.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Regence Blueshield, Appellant v. State of WA, Ofc of the Insurance Commissioner, Respondent
February 14, 2006
Regence Blueshield appeals the trial court's decision that the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) was justified when it disapproved of Regence's proposed pharmacy rider, form RBS-56, because the contract did not comply with the Diabetes Cost Reduction Act of 1997 (DCRA).1 Regence argues that (1) annual benefit limits are a permissible cost-sharing provision under the statute's plain language; and (2) its statutory interpretation is correct in light of ejusdem generis,2 legislative history, case law, and other authority. Holding that the proposed pharmacy rider is not a cost-sharing provision as the plain language of the DCRA contemplates, and that it improperly eliminates pharmacy coverage for diabetes treatment, we affirm the OIC's disapproval of Regence's form RBS-56.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Daniel Gaspar v. Peshastin HI-up Growers, a Washington Corporation
February 14, 2006
Daniel Gaspar filed a complaint against his former employer, Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. He contends he was terminated for assisting a police investigation at his work place. The trial court dismissed his complaint and he appeals, contending the trial court failed to recognize that he was terminated in violation of a clearly mandated public policy. Because we find that Mr. Gaspar established a valid claim that he was discharged in violation of a clear public policy for assisting a police investigation, we reverse and remand.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - State of Washington v. Tami Jo Hearn
February 9, 2006
Tami Jo Hearn was stopped by police for traffic infractions on two separate occasions. On each occasion, she was arrested when police discovered she was driving with a suspended license. On each occasion, police discovered methamphetamine among her possessions in the vehicle in the search incident to arrest. She appeals two convictions for drug possession. First, she contends that the evidence obtained from the search of her vehicle was inadmissible because the statute upon which her arrest was based was declared unconstitutional in City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664, 91 P.3d 875 (2004). Second, she asserts that the trial court erred when it ordered that as a condition of her community placement she refrain from associating with known drug offenders. Third, she challenges the court's determination at sentencing that a vehicle was used in the commission of a felony, which resulted in a one-year suspension of her driver's license. RCW 46.20.285(4).
Because Ms. Hearn has not identified the statute under which her license was suspended and the record does not reflect the information, we cannot review her Moore claim. We conclude that the conditions of her community placement did not impermissibly interfere with her constitutional right of association. However, the court erred when determining that she used a motor vehicle in the commission of her crimes. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., Appellant v. Department of Revenue, Respondent
January 31, 2006
Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. (Texaco) appeals from a summary judgment order that the Department of Revenue (DOR) employed the proper method of valuation for calculating the manufacturing Business and Occupation (B&O) tax on petroleum products exchanged with other refineries under barter agreements. We hold that RCW 82.04.450 requires that a product be valued by the gross proceeds of sale, but where there are no proceeds (as here where there is a barter) the product should be valued by comparable sales. Because that statute is unambiguous, the burden is on the taxpayer, Texaco, to show that the tax was incorrect and then to establish the correct amount. We also hold that Texaco failed in its burden to show that the tax calculated under DOR's valuation method was incorrect and establish the correct amount. We affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division II - Janet Sue Ludwig, Appellant v. Dept. of Retirement Systems, Respondent
January 31,2006
Substitute House Bill (SHB) 2604, Laws of 2000, chapter 186, authorized certain retired members of the state pension system to delete what had previously been an irrevocable survivor benefit in exchange for increased monthly benefits. Ruth Timm deleted her designation of a survivor benefit in favor of Janet Ludwig. Ludwig sued, maintaining that SHB 2604 deprived her of a vested right to the survivor benefit. She also maintains that SHB 2604 is an unconstitutional modification of the state pension system. Like the superior court, we disagree with Ludwig. We affirm.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Appellant v. City Of Seattle Depart. Of Executive Administration, Respondent
January 30, 2006
Sprint Spectrum, L.P./Sprint PCS ('Sprint') sells cellular service and equipment to customers throughout the United States. As a cellular business, Sprint is subject to the City of Seattle's telephone business utility tax. Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 5.48. The telephone utility tax is based on the total gross income from Sprint's cellular business activity in Seattle. 'Gross income' is defined as 'the value proceeding or accruing from the sale of tangible property or service, and receipts (including all sums earned or charged, whether received or not) . . . .' SMC 5.48.020(B). Sprint contends the City of Seattle's definition of gross income is ambiguous because the amount Sprint charges its customers for the utility tax is not 'value proceeding or accruing' directly from the sale of cellular service. Therefore, according to Sprint, those charges cannot be included in calculating the utility tax Sprint owes. We disagree. Sprint's decision to separately charge its customers for the utility tax cannot change the fact that the tax is a part of the sales price Sprint charges for cellular services. In addition, the utility tax charge is a part of Sprint's income and, as a matter of law, is not a deductible business expense. We affirm the decision of the Seattle Hearing Examiner that the definition of gross income in SMC 5.48.020(B) is not ambiguous and the amount Sprint charges its customers for the utility tax must be included in calculating the gross income for Sprint's cellular business in Seattle.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Northlake Marine Works et al, Appellants v. City of Seattle et al, Respondents
January 23, 2006
Lake Washington Rowing Club obtained permits from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the City of Seattle, (City) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to install a ramp and floating dock in Waterway 23 at the north end of Lake Union. Northlake Marine Works, Inc., operates a marina on property adjacent to Waterway 23. Northlake filed a state court challenge to DNR's and the City's statutory authority under state law to issue the permits. DNR argued that Northlake failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, and also that DNR had statutory authority to issue the permits. The trial court ruled in favor of DNR on the ground of Northlake's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies, while also addressing the merits and concluding that DNR issued its permit consistent with state law. The trial court dismissed Northlake's claims against the City on the ground that the success of these claims was dependent on the success of Northlake's challenge to DNR's permit.
Northlake appeals. DNR cross-appeals the trial court's ruling dismissing its trespass counterclaims against Northlake. The City cross-appeals the trial court's decision to grant a statutory writ of review of the City's street use permit. Northlake and DNR both seek attorney fees on the trespass issues.
We hold that Northlake did not fail to exhaust its remedies or otherwise improperly bring its action. We hold that RCW 79.93.010 does not prohibit the Rowing Club's use of Waterway 23, and that its use was authorized consistent with state law. We hold that the trial court did not err in granting the statutory writ. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to DNR and the City. We reverse the trial court's conclusion that Northlake was not trespassing in the waterway, because that conclusion turns on a missing factual determination of whether federal law authorizes Northlake's use. We remand to the trial court for further fact finding and to determine the amount of damages and the award of attorney fees.
|
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - City of Olympia v. John Drebick and Jane Doe Drebick, et al.
January 19, 2006
The City of Olympia (the City) seeks reversal of a Court of Appeals decision that invalidated the City's calculation of a transportation impact fee imposed on a commercial developer, Drebick Investments (Drebick). At issue is whether the City's impact fee ordinances comply with the impact fee statutes, RCW 82.02.050-.090, of the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. We hold that, contrary to the city hearing examiner's interpretation, the GMA impact fee statutes do not require local governments to calculate an impact fee by making individualized assessments of the new development's direct impact on each improvement planned in a service area. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
|
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - City of Olympia v. John Drebick and Jane Doe Drebick, et al. (Dissenting)
January 19, 2006
The City of Olympia (City) claims the fees at issue here 'are, in essence, excise taxes on new development generally . . . '1 'because the ultimate purpose of the fees is to generally raise revenue to fund needed public facilities and infrastructure.'2 I agree. The resulting problem for the City is therefore twofold: (1) the City has not been statutorily authorized to impose an excise tax on new development and (2) the City has been specifically prohibited by RCW 82.02.020 from doing just that. To put it simply, the only way these fees could pass statutory, much less constitutional,3 muster is that they be true 'impact fees' as that term is defined and limited by the legislature, which excise taxes clearly are not.
Having stated the general proposition, I repair to the facts which demonstrate these fees are indeed excise taxes on new construction, precisely as contended by the City.
|
|
|
Washington Supreme Court - Coalition For A New Spokane et al vs Vicky Dalton et al.
January 12, 2006
The Coalition for a New Spokane (Coalition) challenges the validity of the signatures supporting Shannon SullivanRs recall petition against Spokane Mayor James E. West. RCW 29A.56.150(2) provides that where the issue of the sufficiency of a recall petition reaches this court and we find the petition sufficient, the time for the collection of signatures on the petition Sbegins on the day following the issuance of the decision by the supreme court.T The Coalition contends that the signatures supporting the recall petition were gathered before this court filed its written opinions in In re Recall of James E. West, noted at 121 P.3d 1190, 2005 Wash. LEXIS 860, at *2 on October 26, 2005, and thus the signatures are invalid under RCW 29A.56.150(2). We disagree and instead conclude that the decision of this court, for purposes of RCW 29A.56.150(2), occurred when we issued the order affirming the superior court on August 24, 2005. Therefore, the signatures supporting the recall petition were not collected prematurely, and we affirm the superior court in this case.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Pacific Sound Resources et al, App's vs Burlington Northern Railway et al, Resps
December 27, 2005
A contribution claim under Washington's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) for recovery of cleanup costs against other potentially liable persons must be brought within three years 'from the date remedial action confirms cleanup standards are met.'1 While the Legislature broadly defines 'remedial action,' it did not define what action 'confirms' when cleanup standards are met. Pacific Sound Resources (PSR) and The Port of Seattle (the Port) sued Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company and J.H. Baxter and Company (collectively 'BNSF') and others2 under the MTCA to recover environmental cleanup costs incurred at the PSR Superfund Site (Site). PSR and the Port also alleged claims under common law tort theories of negligence, nuisance, and trespass. On summary judgment, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit as barred by the statute of limitations. In dismissing the claims under the MTCA, the trial court relied on assertions in the final Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conclude PSR and the Port's contributions claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
We conclude that the language in RCW 70.105D.080 that 'remedial action confirms cleanup standards are met' requires some official decision by the lead agency. EPA's approval of the RI/FS is not an official decision that triggers the statute of limitations. The RI/FS is a predecision document that identifies the nature and extent of the problems at the site and evaluates and recommends alternative cleanup actions. After completion of the RI/FS, the lead agency issues a formal decision selecting the cleanup action. Because we conclude that the earliest the statute of limitations began to run for the MTCA contribution claims was when EPA officially selected the cleanup remedy for the Site and established site cleanup levels in the Record of Decision (ROD), we need not definitively decide what remedial action 'confirms' when cleanup standards are met under the MTCA. In order to fulfill the stated purpose of the statute to encourage and promote hazardous waste site cleanup by private parties, the Legislature or the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), through administrative rule making, needs to clearly define what remedial action confirms that cleanup standards are met under RCW 70.105D.080.
We conclude the common law tort theories are barred by the three-year statute of limitations because there were actual and substantial damages known well over three years before PSR and the Port filed their lawsuit. But we reverse the trial court's decision to dismiss the contribution claims under RCW 70.105D.080 and remand for trial.
|
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Snoqualmie Valley School District #410, Respondent v. Kenneth P. Van Eyk, Appellant
December 19, 2005
Snoqualmie Valley and Lake Washington School Districts denied a citizen petition to transfer territory between the districts. The citizens then obtained a hearing on their petition from a regional committee, where it was approved. Snoqualmie Valley successfully appealed to the State Board of Education. The Board reversed, and ruled that the districts' joint decision to deny the petition was controlling. The Board concluded that the regional committee lacked authority to hear a citizen petition when the districts have come to agreement that the petition should be denied. We affirm the decision of the Board.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division I - Okeson, et al., Resps. vs. City of Seattle, App.
December 19,2005
Seattle's Art in Public Works Construction ordinance, chapter 20.32 SMC, requires City Light and other city departments to allocate one percent of the budgets for their capital construction projects within Seattle for the support of public art. From 2000 to 2003, the City spent almost $3 million of City Light moneys on projects as varied as Salmon in the City, Urban Collaborations, Skagit Streaming, and the Wave Rave Cave. Rudy Okeson and other plaintiffs (hereinafter 'Okeson') challenged the funding of these projects and the application of the ordinance to City Light.
The trial court determined that many of these projects were for the benefit of the general public, not City Light or City Light ratepayers in particular, and should not have been funded with City Light revenue. The trial court restricted the arts projects the City could support with City Light funds, ordered the transfer of funds from the City's General Fund to the City Light Fund, and invalidated the application of chapter 20.32 SMC to City Light. The City appeals.
We affirm in large part, with a modification of the court's decision to invalidate the application of chapter 20.32 SMC. City Light has the statutory authority to engage only in activities that have a sufficiently close nexus to the purpose of providing electricity to local residents. We decline to award attorney fees and costs to Okeson.
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - Chevron U.S.A Inc. V. Central Puget Sound Growth Managment Hearings Board, et al.
December 15, 2005
This court is asked to determine if constitutional due process principles require individual notification to a landowner whose land is designated a potential annexation area under an adjacent town's comprehensive plan. The Court of Appeals held Chevron U.S.A., Inc.'s (Chevron) due process rights were not implicated here because the town of Woodway's comprehensive plan amendments do not infringe upon Chevron's property rights. We agree with the appellate court's reasoning and affirm.
|
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - Advanced Silicon Materials vs Grant County
December 8, 2005
This case involves a property tax refund action involving the 2002 tax assessments for four real and personal property tax accounts owned by Advanced Silicon Materials, L.L.C. (ASiMI). ASiMI filed suit against Grant County for a refund of property taxes paid under protest in 2003 pursuant to RCW 84.68.020, alleging that Grant County imposed unlawful and excessive taxes on ASiMI's properties for the 2002 tax year. The superior court granted partial summary judgment to ASiMI on a key legal issue from which Grant County filed an interlocutory appeal directly with this court.
Grant County uses a four-year cyclical valuation system pursuant to RCW 84.41.041, meaning roughly one-fourth of the real properties within Grant County's authority are revalued for property tax purposes each year. ASiMI's real properties were last inspected and revalued in 1999. The assessed values of ASiMI's properties in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 were based on the 1999 valuations. The issue before us is whether the superior court was correct in ordering that, despite the fact that under Grant County's cyclical revaluation system properties are only revalued once every four years, ASiMI should be allowed to establish a midcycle fair market value for its properties as of January 1, 2002. We reverse the superior court.
Washington State Department of Revenue news release.
|
|
Washington State Court of Appeals Division III - Cecile B. Woods v. Kittitas County, et al
November 29, 2005
In January 2004, three landowner-companies applied for a rezone of approximately 252 acres in Kittitas County from forest and range (allowing one dwelling per 20 acres) to rural-3 (allowing one dwelling per 3 acres). The Kittitas County board of commissioners approved the rezone and adopted Ordinance 2004-15 to implement it. Neighboring landowner Cecile Woods filed a land use petition challenging the rezone. In a December 2004 order, the Yakima County Superior Court granted the petition and reversed.
Kittitas County and the landowner-companies appeal, contending the superior court lacked jurisdiction to decide the petition and erred in concluding that the rezone was inconsistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW. Although we find that the superior court had jurisdiction over the land use petition, we conclude that the court erred in addressing the rezone's compliance with the GMA, and reverse.
|
|
|
Washington State Supreme Court - Holmes Harbor Sewer District v. Holmes Harbor Home Building LLC
November 23, 2005
This case requires us to determine whether, under chapter 57.08 RCW, a local sewer district may impose monthly charges against unimproved lots that are not connected to the system. We conclude on the facts of this case that under RCW 57.08.081(1), the unimproved lots are not properties to which sewer service is available. Accordingly, we hold that the charges at issue are not statutorily authorized and reverse the Court of Appeals.
|
|
