The Stoel Rives Appellate Law Blog
Brooks v. BPM Senior Living Co.
Court of Appeals Case No.: 69332-8-I
Supreme Court Case No.: 90220-8
Issue(s):
…
Article by Sook Kim, Summer Associate and law student at University of Washington School of Law
[Learn more about Stoel Rives’ summer program here]
In BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Fulbright, the Washington Supreme Court held that a lien for future payments takes effect when the lien is recorded, regardless of whether the future payments are due at the time of recording. As a result, the lien takes priority over all subsequent liens on the same property.
The right to a unanimous jury verdict in a criminal case is not simply the right to be free from conviction unless all jurors vote guilty. As the Washington Supreme Court recently explained, this right carries the requirement that the jury reach its decision only after all jurors have deliberated with one another on all aspects of the case.
Continue Reading Wash. S. Ct.: Unanimous Jury Verdict Is All About the Deliberative Process
Defendants facing small claims suits will no longer be able to recover their attorney’s fees in cases involving voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff. In AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. v. Lewis, the Washington Supreme Court resolved a long-standing split between the Divisions of the Court of Appeals, holding that a defendant does not qualify as a prevailing party for purposes of entitlement to attorney’s fees under RCW 4.84.250 absent a final judgment.
Continue Reading New Rule for Small Claims: Voluntary Dismissal Does Not Make A Defendant The Prevailing Party
In In re Detention of Morgan, a schizophrenic pedophile petitioned the Washington Supreme Court to reverse a civil commitment order. The court declined to do so.
To reach this unsurprising result, the Supreme Court had to determine that it was acceptable for the detained person to be found a sexually violent predator and deprived of liberty after he had been found incompetent to stand trial. The court justified this determination by holding that full due process rights do not apply to determinations of sexually violent predators, given the compelling interest in protecting society. While few people will be upset by this result, the reasoning underlying the ruling is potentially troubling.Continue Reading Freedom is like a social security check: it can be taken away without full due process rights
On April 29, 2014, the Washington Supreme Court granted 10 petitions for review.
Our colleague, Heidi Wildercompiled the following information about the issues presented:
In State v. Johnson, the Washington Supreme Court provided two rulings. First, it unanimously held that a charging document does not need to provide legal definitions of all the concepts within it to provide constitutionally sufficient notice to the defendant. Second, it ruled 7-2 that a jury must only be given a general criminal law definition of “reckless” to convict a defendant if it is also instructed as to the particular form of recklessness charged. Justice Gordon McCloud assumed her now customary role of dissenter to the second ruling.
In State v. Owens, the Washington Supreme Court interpreted the statute establishing the crime of first degree trafficking in stolen property as establishing only two ways of committing the crime: stealing property for sale to others or trafficking stolen property. In the case before the court, the jury verdict was deemed proper because there was sufficient evidence to prove that Owens both stole and trafficked the car.
In W.G. Clark Construction Company, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed a trial court’s ruling that ERISA preempted state laws designed to ensure that workers on public projects are paid. In doing so, the Court unanimously overturned the state’s precedent on the matter, to join what the Court found to be…
In In re Personal Restraint of Snively, the Court affirmed a principle of law noted before: sexually violent predators do not win collateral challenges to their convictions.
Continue Reading The Court Doesn’t Like Letting People Off McNeil Island
In State v. MacDicken, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that police did not violate Abraham MacDicken’s federal or state constitutional rights by searching a laptop bag and rolling duffle bag without a warrant after he was arrested. The Court held that the bags were immediately associated with MacDicken at the time of his arrest and therefore properly included in the search incident to arrest of MacDicken’s person. In so holding, the Court extended its recent decision in State v. Byrd to reach beyond hand carry items like a purse or laptop bag to rolling luggage. Therefore, police in Washington do not need a warrant to search anything an arrested person was moving with his or her own strength at the time of arrest.
Continue Reading You Are Your Luggage: Court Okays Warantless Searches of all Bags at Time of Arrest
