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 Common Law Medical Necessity Survives the Legalization of Medical Marijuana

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 be addressed.
Continue Reading The Washington Supreme Court Embraces Teague v. Lane to Find Its Decision Against the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Is Not Retroactive

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 of employees was unconscionable.

Background:Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Clarifies that Courts Must Resolve Disputes that go to the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement (e.g., Unconscionability) before Compelling Arbitration

NOTE: Stoel Rives LLP represented amicus National Crop Insurance Services in this appeal.

In Weidert v. Hanson, the Washington Supreme held that a court may not ignore a federally mandated arbitration agreement on equitable grounds.Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits Bases for Invalidating Arbitration Agreements

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 administrative law judge’s decision here that the Department of Health’s action was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Background:Continue Reading Supreme Court Recognizes Broad Discretion of Administrative Law Judges to Admit Evidence, Even if Inconsistent with Past Agency Position

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, does not violate principles of equal protection so long as prosecutors make an individualized determination.
Continue Reading Prosecutors May Consider the Strength of Evidence of Guilt in Deciding Whether to Seek the Death Penalty

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…

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

…

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)

In its August 5, 2013 conference, the Washington Supreme Court granted, continued, or deferred consideration of petitions for review in the following cases:

Case & Background Issue(s)
State v. Boysen
88611-3
41875-4-II
CONTINUED (Sept. 4, 2013 En Banc Conference)
Petition for Review Boysen was convicted of drive-by shooting and second-degree assault after the driver of

…

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.