In Worthington v. WestNET, No. 90037-0, the Washington Supreme Court considered the applicability of the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, to a multiagency drug task force formed by several Washington municipalities and the federal Naval Criminal Investigation Service.  Pursuant to Interlocal Cooperation Act (ICA), Chapter 39.34 RCW, the task force was not…

In Utter v. BIAW, No. 89462-1, the Washington Supreme Court  reinstated the lawsuit by two retired Justices against the Building Industry Association of Washington.  The lawsuit alleged that BIAW violated the Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA), by failing to register as a political committee  during the 2007-2008 Gubernatorial campaign.  BIAW, a non-profit, formed…

In Henne v. City of Yakima, No. 89674-7, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that the city of Yakima could not bring a motion to strike a police officer’s lawsuit against the city under the state anti-SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.510.  The officer sued Yakima for negligent hiring, training and supervision of  his coworkers who, he…

Back in 2011 Washington voters approved I-1183 to allow the sale of spirits (hard alcohol or liquor) by certain private enterprises, ending the state monopoly over retail liquor sales.  The initiative created multiple classes of spirits distribution privileges.  Distributors operating under a “spirits distributor license” enjoy the broadest grant of authority to distribute spirits.  Other businesses, such as in-state distillers, importers, and out-of-state distillers, were granted permission under their existing licenses also engage in distribution of their own products.

The initiative also created a scheme for raising revenues distribution license fees to fund Liquor Control Board programs  Part of this scheme (RCW 66.24.055(3)(c)) required “all persons holding distributor licenses” to make up the shortfall if distributor license fees did not generate $150 million in revenue.  The Liquor Control Board subsequently adopted regulations imposing licensing fees against all businesses engaged in spirits retail sales and distribution.  But instead of creating a scheme that required all businesses engaged in spirits distribution to make up the shortfall on a pro rata basis, the Board’s rules imposed that liability only on the class of businesses enjoying the broadest range of distribution rights – “persons holding a spirits distribution license.”Continue Reading This Round’s On You: Washington Supreme Court Upholds Liquor License Fee Shortfall Scheme

In Riverview Community Group v. Spencer & Livingstone,  NO. 88575-3, the Washington Supreme Court held that an equitable servitude may arise by implication.  The developer of a golf course complex and surrounding residential lots built in the 1980s sought to close down the golf complex and to plat the course into new residential lots.  …

In Scanlan v. Townsend,  No. 89853-7, the Washington Supreme Court held that second-hand service of process  —  the process server delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to the home of  defendant’s father, who later handed the summons and complaint to the defendant within the statute of limitations — met the requirements of …

In Lyons v. U.S. Bank Nat. Association, No. 89132-0, the Washington Supreme Court clarified that a damage claim  by a borrower against a trustee for violations of the deed of trust act (DTA), chapter 61.24 RCW, fails as a matter of law in the absence of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of the property.  However,  …