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 That doctrine has superseded the “economic loss rule,” which previously limited recovery of economic damages to contract claims and recovery of non-economic damages to tort claims.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 to the majority opinion, described in greater length below, a contracting party can have a duty in tort to another contracting party if and only if the duty is independent of the agreement. If the contract is unclear, then it must be interpreted by a trier of fact before dismissal based on the independent duty doctrine is proper. As explained by the four-justice dissent, this analysis is unnecessary to the independent duty doctrine, cannot be harmonized with the parties’ agreement, and is not supported by settled principles of contract law. Consistent with those legal principles, the dissent would limit the plaintiff to contract damages where, as here, the parties’ agreement encompasses the risk of harm that is claimed.
Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Breaks New Ground with Independent Duty Doctrine

In State v. Monfort, a six justice majority of the Washington Supreme Court emphasized that prosecutors need only make a “subjective determination” about whether a defendant should be executed before filing the notice required to seek the death penalty at trial.  The Supreme Court criticized a trial court for “going beyond the question of whether the county prosecutor had his reasons” and striking a death penalty notice on the basis that the prosecutor’s investigation was inadequate.  Three justices concurred, agreeing that the death penalty notice should be reinstated, but argued that prosecutors must have an objectively reasonable basis for seeking the death penalty.


Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Holds That Prosecutors May Seek The Death Penalty Without An Objectively Reasonable Basis For The Decision

From our colleague, Rita Latsinova:

The State Supreme Court upheld RCW 9.95.160, which permits the governor to cancel the parole granted by the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board, in a due-process challenge by an inmate whose parole had been approved and release date set by the Board but abruptly cancelled by the governor, who also denied the inmate’s request for an in-person hearing.

In 1982 Terry Lain was convicted of assaulting a police officer and sentenced to a maximum of life imprisonment. The Board set his minimum sentence at 240 months. After denying parole three times, in 2010 the Board found Lain conditionally parolable. Lain submitted a release plan that would relocate him to Iowa, and the State of Iowa agreed to allow parole there. The Board ordered him paroled effective December 20, 2010.

The police officer whom Lain had assaulted lodged a complaint with “the Problem Solvers” at KOMO news. KOMO ran a story opposing parole. The local police guild also objected to the parole. The governor cancelled the parole, ordered the Department of Corrections not to release Lain, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings. The Board held a hearing and added 36 months to Lain’s minimum term. Lain filed a personal restraint petition.Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Holds that Governor’s Cancellation of an Inmate’s Parole Does Not Violate Due Process

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…

The Washington Supreme Court approved of community mitigation projects funded by King County and located in Snohomish County to offset the impact of a wastewater plant that King County built in Snohomish County.  The Court largely approved all trial court rulings that the community mitigation expenses were part of the project cost and reversed the sole trial court ruling that a King County expense was unrelated to the sewage treatment goals.
Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Approves Community Mitigation Component of Wastewater Treatment Plant

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

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.