Notice of Appeal Archive

Subscribe to Notice of Appeal Archive via RSS

In a 5-3 decision, the State Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the use of Washington’s recreational immunity statute (former RCW 4.24.210) in Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Constr. Co., No. 85583-8.

Plaintiff Susan Camicia was bicycling along the Interstate-90 trail, crossing over a portion of the trail located on Mercer Island, when she swerved to avoid the defendant construction company’s fence footing protruding onto the pathway.  Then Camicia immediately hit a wooden post on the trail, which the City of Mercer Island had placed there to prevent vehicles from using the trail, and was thrown from her bike.  Camicia suffered serious injuries and was paralyzed as a result of her fall.
Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court: Recreational Use Immunity is in the Eye of the Landowner

Roughly three years ago, the Washington Supreme Court took a bold step toward eliminating appeals to racial bias in criminal trials.  In State v. Monday, the Court reversed a first-degree murder conviction supported by videotape evidence of the charged crime and an apparent confession by the defendant because the prosecutor tainted the proceeding by impermissibly injecting race into the trial.  Specifically, the prosecutor argued that African-American witnesses had adhered to an anti-snitch code and mimicked some African-American witnesses’ pronunciation of the word “police.”  Monday was remarkable because the Court announced a rule putting the burden on the State – not the defendant – to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a prosecutor’s appeal to racial bias (whether subtle or direct) does not affect the jury’s verdict.    

Last week, the Supreme Court significantly limited the reach of Monday.  In the Personal Restraint Petition of Gentry, the Court ruled that the burden-shifting framework articulated in Monday does not apply retroactively to collateral attacks on criminal convictions.


Continue Reading Wash. S. Ct.: Monday Is Not A Retroactive, “Watershed” Rule Of Criminal Procedure

Schroeder v. Wieghall

When Jaryd Schroeder was nine-years old, he sought treatment from Dr. Steven Weighall and Columbia Basin Imaging.  During this treatment, he received an MRI, which Weighall reviewed and concluded was normal.  Nearly eight years later, at the age of 17, Schroeder underwent another MRI.  This MRI revealed that Schroeder suffered from an Arnold Chiari Type I Malformation.  The radiologist reviewing the second MRI concluded that the condition had been present to the same extent at the time of Schroeder’s first MRI.

Subsequently, the day before his 19th birthday, Schroeder filed a medical malpractice action against Weighall, Columbia Basin Imaging, PC, and a third party (who was dismissed by stipulation).  In response, Weighall argued that the action was time barred by the applicable statute of limitations and subject to the minority-tolling exemption codified at RCW 4.16.190(2).  The trial court agreed with Weighall and dismissed Schroeder’s action.  Schroeder then appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court, arguing that RCW 4.16.190(2) violated article I, section 10 and article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed.Continue Reading Toll This: Wash. S. Ct. Holds Tolling Exemption In Med Mal Cases Unconstitutional

In State v. Arreola (pdf), the Washington Supreme Court confronted, once again, the tension between liberty and privacy interests and safety and security intersts.  There, it ruled that a police officer may conduct a traffic stop to investigate unlawful activity (driving under the influence) without any permissible basis for doing so as long as there is another – independent and lawfully sufficient – reason for the stop.  As Justice Chambers notes in dissent, the majority’s holding does not appear to comport with existing case law or with the constitutional mandate that “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs … without authority of law.”
Continue Reading Wash. S. Ct. Defines Constitutional Limits of “Mixed-Motive” Traffic Stops

Authored by Melissa White of Cozen O’Connor

In Capitol Specialty Insurance v. JBC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al. (pdf), the Washington Court of Appeals held that a firearms exclusion in a commercial general liability policy bars coverage for all claims arising out of a shooting, including pre-shooting negligence.  The Court confirmed that the exclusion is not ambiguous and rejected the insured’s arguments that the firearms exclusion should not apply if the firearm was not actually used by the insured.
Continue Reading Wash. Ct. of Appeals: Firearms Exclusion Precludes Coverage for Pre-Shooting Negligence

In Staples v. Allstate Insurance Co. (pdf), the Washington Supreme Court squarely held (disapproving prior precedent to the extent contrary) that an insurer does not have an unfettered right to request that a policyholder submit to an Examination Under Oath (“EUO”).  Instead, the EUO must be material to the insurer’s investigation or handling of a claim.  The court also held that an insurer cannot deny a claim based on failure to submit to an EUO unless it first establishes prejudice.  The court’s opinion seeks to strike a reasonable balance between an insurer’s interest in obtaining information that is reasonably necessary to investigate a claim and a policyholder’s contractual right to coverage.
Continue Reading Wash. S. Ct.: To Deny a Claim for Failure to Submit to an Examination Under Oath, Insurers Must Show Prejudice

Authored by Jason T. Morgan of Stoel Rives LLP

In Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association v. Washington Department of Ecology (pdf), the Washington Court of Appeals concluded that the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology’) properly denied a petition for rulemaking under Washington’s Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) regarding water quality standards for the Columbia River.  This was the third petition by similarly situated petitioners seeking to force the Ecology to relax water quality standards on the Columbia River, with the goal that such relaxed standards would allow the federal agencies to spill more water over Columbia River dams for the intended benefit of migrating salmon.  The Court of Appeals confirmed that Ecology’s denial of the petition — which was informed, in part, by potential adverse consequences on aquatic organisms due to increased spill — was not arbitrary or capricious.
Continue Reading Court of Appeals Affirms Ecology’s Denial Of Petition For Rulemaking On Water Quality for Columbia River

In P.E. Systems, LLC v. CI Corp. (pdf) the Washington Supreme Court clarified two important points about the Washington Civil Rules and the common law of contracts.  First, the Court squarely held that Washington trial courts may consider a contract attached to a pleading in deciding a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6) without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.  This is an important procedural issue.  While federal courts have clearly addressed the issue in dozens of published opinions, this opinion eliminates any uncertainty under Washington law and aligns our courts with federal courts.  Second, the Court concluded that a contract that incorporated by reference an incomplete addendum was an “agreement with open terms,” which is binding on parties, rather than an “agreement to agree,” which is unenforceable under Washington law.
Continue Reading Wash. Supreme Court: Authentic Contracts Attached To Pleadings May Be Considered On A CR 12(b)(6) Motion

In Skyline Contractors, Inc. v. Spokane Housing Authority (pdf), the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that an aggrieved bidder on a public work contract is limited to seeking  injunctive relief against the government.  The Court of Appeals then extended this principal to a bidder that is awarded the public work contract and subsequently divested of its award.  As a result of the Court’s holding, a bidder, whether successful or not, is precluded from seeking monetary damages against the government.  Instead, it may seek only injunctive relief.
Continue Reading Public Works Contract Bidders Limited To Injunctive Relief Under Washington Law

Public agency officials responsible for responding to public records requests for texts, emails, and other electronic records stored on personal smartphones and computers can breathe a sigh of relief.  In Forbes v. City of Gold Bar (pdf), the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a requester’s lawsuit filed against the City of Gold Bar under the Public Records Act (“PRA”), chapter 42.56 RCW.  In so doing, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed the principle that the responding agency’s search process for responsive documents — not the results of such search — is reviewed for reasonableness.  Further, the Court clarified that agency affidavits concerning the responsiveness vel non of documents are accorded a strong presumption of good faith.  Where such affidavits are nonconclusory, include the search terms used by the responding agencies, and identify the places and devices searched, and where a requester fails to articulate a specific reason why an in camera review is necessary, a trial court may rule based solely on such affidavits.
Continue Reading Wash. Ct. of Appeals: Public Records Act Responses Are Reviewed for Reasonableness

About the Notice of Appeal Blog

Learn More

Welcome to the Stoel Rives Appellate Law blog, dedicated to providing those in appellate law practices regular updates on significant decisions from courts of appeal within our regions of practice. It is our goal to build out this blog to be a handy resource for both keeping up to date on new decisions and quickly locating information about past decisions.