Washington State Supreme Court reverses Division II in part and holds that failure to meet conditions to terminate a foreclosure sale and further appeal the trial court’s ruling constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the foreclosure sale, but not other post-sale relief in Frizzell v. Murray, No. 87927-3. Background and Analysis Despite her … Continue Reading
Last week the Washington Supreme Court extended a life preserver to plaintiffs who brought med mal claims against public hospitals between July 1, 2010 and December 27, 2012 without giving the hospitals 90-days presuit notice. The Court withdrew its earlier opinions in McDevitt v. Harborview and clarified that its ruling upholding the presuit notice requirement … Continue Reading
Donatelli v. D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. [Wash. Sup. Ct. No. 86590-6] A five justice majority in this case continued to develop the “independent duty doctrine” in Washington. That doctrine has superseded the “economic loss rule,” which previously limited recovery of economic damages to contract claims and recovery of non-economic damages to tort claims. According … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
At issue in State vs. Byrd is whether a police officer violated federal and state privacy rights by searching a defendant’s purse incident to arrest after the defendant was secured in a police car and the purse was left on the ground outside the vehicle. The Washington Supreme Court determined that the search did not violate either … Continue Reading
In Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Washington State Department of Ecology (PDF), the Washington Supreme Court determined that the state Department of Ecology (Ecology) overstepped its statutory authority by issuing an Amended Rule for the Skagit River which both established minimum water flow levels and set aside 27 reservations allowing users to draw on the water even … Continue Reading
At issue in State v. Dye (PDF) was whether a criminal defendant is denied a fair trial by allowing a developmentally disabled victim to testify with the assistance of a comfort dog. Such trial management decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Based on the evidence presented to the trial court at a hearing on the … Continue Reading
In re Cross [Wash. Sup. Ct. No. 79761-7] The Washington Supreme Court unanimously held in this opinion that a capital sentence can be predicated on an Alford plea. The court explained that the “advantage” of entering an Alford plea in a capital case is to preserve the ability to argue in the penalty phase that … Continue Reading
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Benjamin B. Brockie, No. 86241-9 (Sept. 26, 2013) (en banc) Benjamin Brockie was charged by information for, among other things, first degree robbery. Brockie’s charging information indicated that “in the commission of an immediate flight therefrom, the defendant displayed what appeared to be a firearm or other … Continue Reading
In Freeman v. State, the Washington Supreme Court rejected an attempt to block the lease of the two center lanes on I-90 to Sound Transit for light rail use. In so ruling, the Court held that WSDOT may lease highways financed with MVF monies where a plan exists to reimburse the MVF. It further held … Continue Reading
In State v. Lynch, the Washington State Supreme Court confirmed that a trial court’s inclusion of an affirmative defense instruction upon an unwilling defendant violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights in criminal prosecutions.… Continue Reading
The Washington Supreme Court held in State v. Kurtz that the common law medical necessity defense to marijuana crimes continues to exist alongside extensive legislation regarding marijuana usage in Washington.… Continue Reading
The Washington Supreme Court held in In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Haghighi that its 2009 decision State v. Winterstein, which invalidated the “inevitable discovery doctrine,” does not apply retroactively to old convictions. The Court then held that the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was untimely and, as such, would not … Continue Reading
In Hill v. Garda CL NW, Inc., the Washington Supreme Court reiterated that courts have the power and obligation to resolve dsputes going to the validity of arbitration agreements, unless an arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably provides otherwise. Unconscionability is one such dispute, and the Court ruled that an arbitration agreement severely limiting the rights … Continue Reading
In King County Public Hospital District No. 2 v. Wash. State Dep’t of Health, the Washington State Supreme Court recognized that administrative law judges have broad discretion to admit evidence in challenges to agency actions. Further, administrative law judges’ decisions on underlying agency actions are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard, and the record supported the … Continue Reading
In State v. McEnroe, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors are not prohibited by statute from considering the evidence of guilt in deciding whether to seek the death penalty. Prosecutors must consider mitigating factors, and they also have discretion to consider other factors, including the strength of the evidence. Such consideration, the Court explained, … Continue Reading
In State v. Chen, the Washington Supreme held that once a competency evaluation becomes a court record, it also becomes subject to the constitutional presumption of openness, which can be rebutted only when the trial court makes an individualized finding that the Ishikawa factors weigh in favor of sealing. The Court essentially balanced the public’s … Continue Reading
The Court granted review in three cases at its September 3 conference. Case Background Issues Fergen v. Sestero 88819-1 Court of Appeals Opinion In this med mal case, the treating physician testified that he considered two different diagnoses before incorrectly diagnosing his patient as having a benign cyst. The patient had a malignant tumor and … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
