Merits Cases

Subscribe to Merits Cases via RSS

State of Washington v. Bao Dinh Dang [Wash. Sup. Ct. No. 87726-2]

The Washington Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion that held that persons acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity and granted conditional release under medical supervision may only have their conditional release terminated if the court determines they are dangerous.  Without a dangerousness finding, a court may not commit an acquitted person into a mental health facility solely on the basis that the person is not abiding by the terms and conditions of release.  This should be a welcome decision for mental health advocates seeking to erode the assumption that the mentally ill are inherently dangerous or violent.Continue Reading WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT REQUIRES INDIVIDUALS TO BE FOUND DANGEROUS BEFORE THEY CAN BE INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY

State of Washington v. Wooten [Wash. Sup. Ct. No. 87855-2]

Commentary: David Wooten was convicted of first degree malicious mischief for damaging a home that he was purchasing pursuant to real estate contract. Wooten claimed on appeal that he did not damage “property of another,” an element of the offense, because he had exclusive possessory…

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Joe Wickersham [Wash. Sup. Ct. No. 201,088-1]

Among the Washington Supreme Court’s many responsibilities is review of disciplinary actions.  Here, the circumstances were especially difficult because the attorney misconduct was caused by mental illness rather than neglect or incompetence.  Nevertheless, given the seriousness of the misconduct, the six-justice majority imposed a three-year sanction and directed that Wickersham pay restitution and undergo an independent psychiatric examination before returning to practice.  The three-justice dissent disagreed based on their view that Wickersham should not be punished for his mental illness.  The case is interesting in that it shows the wide latitude that our Supreme Court has in determining appropriate sanctions for attorney misconduct.Continue Reading WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT IMPOSES THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEY WHO SUFFERED FROM MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE

BACKGROUND

Washburn v. City of Federal Way involved the tort liability of a municipality.    Paul Chan Kim murdered his partner, Baerbel K. Roznowski, after a Federal Way police officer served Kim with an anti-harassment order forbidding him to contact or remain near Roznowski.  After the murder, Roznowski’s daughters filed suit against the City of Federal Way (the “City”), alleging that the police officer negligently served the anti-harassment order and, as a result, Kim murdered Roznowski.   After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict against the City.  On appeal, the City claims that the trial court erred in denying its summary-judgment motion and motion for judgment as a matter of law because under the public-duty doctrine, the City owed Roznowski no duty.    Both the Court of Appeals and the Washington  Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions.Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court: Municipalities Can Be Held Liable For Negligent Service Of Anti-Harassment Orders

Yesterday the Washington Supreme Court recognized that the governor enjoys a qualified executive communications privilege.  In Freedom Foundation v. Gregoire, the Court held that executive privilege is necessary to facilitate candid advice to the governor and is therefore inherent in the state constitutional principle of separation of powers.  Thus, the executive privilege functions as a constitutional exemption from the disclosure requirements of Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA).  Drawing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Nixon (which required the production of secret audio recordings that precipitated President Nixon’s resignation), the Court ruled that the privilege is presumed upon invocation and can be overcome only by a showing particularized need to access withheld documents.
Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Recognizes Executive Privilege

Brown, et al. v. MHN Government Services, Inc., et al. Opinion – August 15, 2013

Validity of Arbitration Agreements

This case involved an agreement, labeled “Provider Services Task Order Agreement,” between two mental health professionals and their employer. The agreement contained, among other things, a “Mandatory Arbitration” provision and was governed by California law. After several years of working for MHN Government Services, Inc. (“MHN”), plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pierce County Superior Court alleging state law wage claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed class. In response, MHN filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Plaintiffs, in response, moved to quash the demand for arbitration, claiming that that the following five provisions were unconscionable (1) the forum selection clause; (2) the contractual statute of limitations; (3) the arbitrator selection provision; (4) the fee-shifting provision; and (5) the punitive damages exclusion. The superior court denied the motion to compel arbitration. MHN appealed and the case was ultimately transferred to the Supreme Court, pursuant to RCW 2.06.030.Continue Reading Brown, et al. v. MHN Government Services, Inc., et al., No. 87953-2 (Aug. 15, 2013) (en banc)

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.