Notice of Appeal Archive

Subscribe to Notice of Appeal Archive via RSS

In Arzola v. Name Intelligence, Inc. (pdf), the Washington Court of Appeals concluded that payments due to employees under a stock right cancellation agreement did not constitute “wages” as that term is used in Washington’s wage-withholding statute (RCW 49.52.070) because the payments were not for the employees’ services but rather for relinquishment of shares.  It so held even though the underlying stock was expressly provided to the employees based on job performance.  The court’s holding allows employers to convert consideration paid to employees in lieu of cash wages into a separate and distinct contractual right and thereby avoid liability under the wage-withholding statute.
Continue Reading Wash. Ct. of Appeals: Employee Wages Do Not Include Contractual Rights to Company Stock

Authored by Karin Jones of Stoel Rives LLP and Hunter Ferguson

In Orris v. Lingley (pdf), the Court of Appeals held that an injured employee who accepted industrial insurance benefits without question is deemed to have acted within the course of employment and thus may pursue only those remedies by provided the Industrial Insurance Act (“Act”).  Although the Act forecloses an employee who accepts benefits from bringing a tort claim premised on the allegation that he or she was actually acting outside the course of employment at the time of the injury, the Act permits such employee to institute a tort suit against a co-employee on the basis that the co-employee was acting outside the scope of his or her employment.  Because a toxicology report (which was not objected to in the trial court) indicated that a co-employee was intoxicated, a material issue of fact existed as to whether such co-employee had acted outside the course of employment, thus precluding summary judgment.Continue Reading Wash. Ct. of Appeals Clarifies Employees’ Rights of Recovery under the Industrial Insurance Act

In Sacred Heart Medical Center v. Knapp (pdf), the Court of Appeals concluded that a remand for further consideration of whether a claimant is in need of vocational services does not constitute a grant of “additional relief” under RCW 51.52.130(1)’s fee-shifting provision.
Continue Reading “Additional Relief” in Industrial Insurance Act Fee-Shifting Provision Clarified

The Ninth Circuit recently reiterated the critical importance of a district court’s gatekeeper function with regard to the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert.  In Barabin v. AstenJohnson (pdf), the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding causation (whether Barabin’s mesothelioma was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos) largely because the district court did not conduct a Daubert hearing as the defendants’ requested.  Having done so, the Ninth Circuit concluded that it was bound by precedent to remand the matter for a new trial.  Two panel members wrote a concurring opinion on that latter point, expressing disagreement with Ninth Circuit precedent requiring a new trial in cases where expert testimony is improperly admitted.  Were it not for that precedent, these judges would have conditionally vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the district court to conduct a hearing to properly determine if the expert testimony was admissible under Daubert.  If so, then the concurring judges would permit the district court to re-enter the judgment rather than conduct another lengthy trial.  That approach is patently logical:  no purpose is served by requiring a new trial if, after a proper Daubert hearing, the expert testimony at issue is deemed reliable and therefore admissible.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reiterates Critical Importance of District Court’s Gatekeeping Function under Daubert

In Davis v. Fred’s Appliance (pdf), the Court of Appeals held that individuals who suffer workplace discrimination due to perceived sexual orientation are not members of a protected class therefore cannot recover on a hostile work environment claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”).  The Court also affirmed dismissal of a claim for defmation, which ruling prompted a strong (and persuasive) dissent (pdf). 
Continue Reading Court of Appeals Holds WLAD Does Not Permit Employment Discrimination Claims Based On Perceived Sexual Orientation

In Deere Credit, Inc. v. Cervantes Nurseries, LLC, the Court of Appeals recognized that a parallel bankruptcy proceeding involving multiple creditors is not the same “action” for purposes of RCW 61.12.120’s bar against a plaintiff foreclosing on a mortgage “while he is prosecuting any other action for the same debt or matter which is secured by the mortgage. 
Continue Reading The Washington Court Of Appeals Clarifies The Scope Of The Single-Action Rule

In Department of Labor & Industries v. Shirley, the Washington Court of Appeals concluded that an industrial worker’s death was “proximately caused” by an industrial accident where, years after the original injury, the worker simultaneously ingested alcohol and several medications that had been prescribed to treat pain resulting from the accident.  Such activity, the court ruled, was neither reckless nor something that the worker would not reasonably be expected to engage in.  As noted by the dissent, the majority’s analysis appears to overlook principles of forseeability (cause in fact) and public policy (legal causation).
Continue Reading Washington Court Of Appeals Affirms Broad Right Of Recovery Under Industrial Insurance Act

People waiting to know whether the King County shoreline master program (“SMP”) properly applies with the Burien city limits shouldn’t hold their breath.  That is because the Court of Appeals recently held that the petitioners in Patterson v. Segale lacked standing under the APA  to challenge Burien’s decision that the King County SMP continues to apply to areas within the city limits following Burien’s incorporation in 1993.  After the petitioners settled their underlying dispute with a neighbor about the terms of a development permit issued in accordance with the King County SMP, they no longer could establish any concrete injury resulting from Burien’s decision that could be redressed by a favorable court ruling.
Continue Reading No, We Really Mean It. Parties Have To Have Standing To Challenge An Agency Decision Under The APA.

Authored by Jason Specht of Stoel Rives LLP (Portland).

The Oregon Court of Appeals re-affirmed its commitment to applying Oregon’s attorney fee provision, ORS 20.083, as establishing a broad reciprocity principle: in contract disputes, where the contract or a statute would entitle one party to attorney fees if it prevails, then the other party is likewise entitled to attorney fees if it prevails.
Continue Reading Reciprocity Principle Applies to Statutory Attorney Fees Provision Says Oregon Court of Appeals

The Washington Court of Appeals recently shed light on the reach of Washington’s Long-Arm Statute in divorce proceedings involving a long-distance marriage. In Oytan v. David-Oytan (PDF), the court addressed whether the responding party in dissolution, who has never lived full-time in Washington, can nonetheless be said to have “liv[ed] in a marital relationship within this state” and thus fall within the reach of Washington’s Long-Arm Statute? Applying the interpretive principle that different statutory terms must be presumed to have different meaning, the court ruled that the Long-Arm Statute clause “living in a marital relationship within this state” does not have the same meaning as “resident of the state.” Thus, the court ruled, full-time past residence is not required for personal jurisdiction to exist. Rather, whether personal jurisdiction exists must be considered in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the marriage whether the party had sufficient minimum contacts with the state.
Continue Reading Personal Jurisdiction in Long-Distance Marriage Dissolution: Past Full-Time Residency Not Required Says Washington Court of Appeals

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.