In today’s Johnston-Forbes v. Matsunaga decision, the Washington Supreme Court reiterated the rule that expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified, (2) the expert relies on theories that are generally accepted in the scientific community, and (3) the testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact. The trial court has to
Criminal Case Roundup: You Don’t Need Cash to Get Out on Bail and the Supreme Court Wants to Know Whether “Child Luring” is Criminal or Just Disgusting
In State v. Barton, the Washington Supreme Court examined the mandate found in Article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution that criminal defendants “shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.” The Court interpreted the phrase to mean that a criminal defendant has the right to make bail by using a surety, i.e., a third
Washington’s Long Arm is Ready to Grab Madoff-Related Entity
Fall-out from Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme continues. The Washington Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the reinstatement of an action brought by a group of Washington investors (FutureSelect) against an investment firm (Tremont) that pooled and fed money into Madoff “feeder funds.” Having lost all of the $195 million it invested with Tremont, FutureSelect also sued Tremont’s corporate parent (Oppenheimer), corporate grandparent (Massachusetts Mutual), and auditor (Ernst & Young), asserting claims for violation of the Washington State Securities Act (WSSA), and various torts. The trial court dismissed the claims on the pleadings. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Continue Reading Washington’s Long Arm is Ready to Grab Madoff-Related Entity
Don’t Quit Too Soon
In Campbell v. State of Washington Employment Security Department, a unanimous Washington Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Department of Employment Security (Department) that a school teacher who quit his job in June 2010, to accompany his wife in February 2011 to Finland on her Fulbright grant, did not qualify for unemployment benefits under RCW 50.20.050(2)(b)(iii) because it was unreasonable to quit seven months before the planned relocation.
Continue Reading Don’t Quit Too Soon