In State v. Hawkins, the Supreme Court reinstated a trial court’s grant of a new trial for newly discovered evidence after the Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The decision is highly fact specific, and fascinating for mystery buffs, but the take away is clear: just as defendants can’t lightly disturb trial court rulings against
Washington Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Confirms What We Already Knew: Speculation, Hearsay, and Inadmissible Evidence Will Not Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment
In SentinelC3, Inc. v. Hunt (No. 89317-9), the Washington Supreme Court unanimously held that a dissenting shareholder’s belief that the non-dissenting shareholders “concocted a plan” to force him out of the corporation and artificially diminish the value of his shares did not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding entry of summary judgment on the value of his shares, nor did counsel’s affidavit attaching “a true and accurate copy” of a valuation expert’s report do so.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Confirms What We Already Knew: Speculation, Hearsay, and Inadmissible Evidence Will Not Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment
Criminal Case Roundup: You Don’t Need Cash to Get Out on Bail and the Supreme Court Wants to Know Whether “Child Luring” is Criminal or Just Disgusting
In State v. Barton, the Washington Supreme Court examined the mandate found in Article I, section 20 of the Washington State Constitution that criminal defendants “shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.” The Court interpreted the phrase to mean that a criminal defendant has the right to make bail by using a surety, i.e., a third…
University of Washington Properly Suspended Merit Pay Increases in Face of Budget Cuts
In Storti v. University of Washington, the Washington Supreme Court determined that the University’s faculty handbook had created a valid unilateral contract with its faculty that promised a 2% merit-based salary increase subject to “reevaulation” based on funding. When University funding went south at the height of the recession in 2009-10, the University cancelled…
In Renters v. Landlords, the County Clerk Wins
Renters want to vindicate their rights without fear of retaliation. Landlords want to know as much as they can about the people who seek to live in their property. In Hundtofte v. Encarnacion a fractured Supreme Court resolved a conflict between those two impulses in favor of the landlords. Renters can force their landlord to sue to evict them if they feel they are being unjustly ushered out of their apartment. But renters will not be able to keep that lawsuit secret from future landlords who might be wary of renting to litigation-prone tenants. In order to decide this issue, the Court gave something very much like standing to the county clerk who opposed a Superior Court order to amend county indices.
Continue Reading In Renters v. Landlords, the County Clerk Wins
Washington’s Long Arm is Ready to Grab Madoff-Related Entity
Fall-out from Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme continues. The Washington Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the reinstatement of an action brought by a group of Washington investors (FutureSelect) against an investment firm (Tremont) that pooled and fed money into Madoff “feeder funds.” Having lost all of the $195 million it invested with Tremont, FutureSelect also sued Tremont’s corporate parent (Oppenheimer), corporate grandparent (Massachusetts Mutual), and auditor (Ernst & Young), asserting claims for violation of the Washington State Securities Act (WSSA), and various torts. The trial court dismissed the claims on the pleadings. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part; the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Continue Reading Washington’s Long Arm is Ready to Grab Madoff-Related Entity
Washington Supreme Court Declines to Blame Gun Owner for Injuries Caused When a Child Took the Loaded Gun to School
In the denouement of a much-publicized case, the Washington Supreme Court ordered a trial court to dismiss charges against Douglas Bauer, a man who left a loaded gun accessible to his girlfriend’s six year old child. The child took the gun to school, where it discharged and seriously injured a classmate. Bauer was charged with third degree assault for “causing” the child’s injury directly and under a statute outlawing criminal complicity. Bauer sought dismissal of the charges as a matter of law, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, keeping the charges alive. In State v. Bauer, the Supreme Court reversed.
Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Declines to Blame Gun Owner for Injuries Caused When a Child Took the Loaded Gun to School
Washington Supreme Court Roundup
The Supreme Court announced five opinions today. We will post further analysis of the most interesting of these cases in later blog posts.
Futureselect Portfolio Mgmt., Inc. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc. : The Court reversed a trial court dismissal of a lawsuit by a Washington entity against an out of state defendant related to…
Ethics lesson: Conflicts of interest are bad. Nazis and Communists are worse.
Justice Johnson wrote for a unanimous court in In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Hall to remind the Washington bar of a few fine points of ethics:
Do not draft estate documents that name yourself executor and trustee unless the client has explicilty and knowingly consented to it. (Even then, it’s a bad idea.)
If you…
Comity: It’s Not the Law, But Trial Courts Should Act Like it Is
The doctrine of comity allows a domestic court to recognize and enforce the judgment of a foreign court even though it is under no legal obligation to do so. Comity is generally understood to be a voluntary courtesy, but in Washington it now appears to be something more like a rule of law.
In In…