Supreme Court Issues
* Cases Not Yet Set
Civil Rights—Law Against Discrimination—Exemptions—Religious Organizations—Validity—Privileges and Immunities—Religious Freedom—Discrimination Unrelated to Religion
Whether the exclusion of religious nonprofit organizations from the definition of “employer” in the Washington Law Against Discrimination violates Washington Constitution article I, section 11 or 12, and if not, whether the exemption is unconstitutional as applied to an employee claiming that a religious nonprofit organization discriminated against him for reasons unrelated to any religious purpose, practice, or activity.
No. 88218-5, Ockletree (plaintiff) v. Franciscan Health Sys., et al. (defendant).
Certified Question from U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma
Top
Contracts—Breach—In-Home Care Providers—Duty of State to Act in Good Faith—Shared Living Rule—Invalidity of Rule
Whether the Department of Social and Health Services breached its contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing with in-home care providers when it reduced the number of care hours it would pay the providers for on the basis of the “shared living rule,” which was later invalidated for violating federal comparability requirements.
No. 86822-1, Rekhter, et al. (respondents/cross-appellants) v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., et al. (appellants/cross-respondents).
Top
Costs—Attorney Fees—Minor Action for Damages—Prevailing Party—Voluntary Dismissal
Whether the defendant in an action for less than $10,000 was a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney fees under RCW 4.24.250 when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action.
No. 87445-0, Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., Inc. (respondent) v. Lewis (appellants).
Top
Criminal Law—Evidence—Recording Private Conversation—Consent—Text Messages Sent to Another Person’s Smart Phone
Whether police violated the Washington Privacy Act, chapter 9.73 RCW, when they viewed incoming text messages from the defendant on a confiscated smart phone and used the phone to set up a sham illegal drug transaction with the defendant.
No. 87669-0, State (respondent) v. Roden (petitioner).
169 Wn. App. 59 (2012)
Top
*Criminal Law—False Insurance Claim—Elements—Contract of Insurance—Truck Rental Contract—Claim for Damages Submitted to Rental Company Insurer
Whether defendants committed the crime of presenting a false claim under a “contract of insurance” when they submitted a false claim of property damage to the insurer of the company from which they rented a truck to haul the property.
No. 87697-5, State (respondent) v. Mau (petitioner); State v. Eden (defendant).
Top
*Criminal Law—First Degree Malicious Mischief—Elements—Property of Another—What Constitutes
Whether damage inflicted by a defendant to a house that he was buying under a contract constituted damage to “property of another” for purposes of the crime of first degree malicious mischief.
No. 87855-2, State (respondent) v. Wooten (petitioner).
Top
Criminal Law—Homicide—Controlled Substances Homicide—Elements—Identity of Specific Substance
Whether in charging controlled substance homicide the State must specify in the information the controlled substance involved in the crime.
No. 87614-2, State (respondent) v. Zillyette (petitioner).
169 Wn. App. 24 (2012)
Top
Criminal Law—Insanity—Competency to Stand Trial—Psychiatric Examinations—Written Report—Status as Court Record—Openness to Public View
Whether in a prosecution for aggravated first degree murder the superior court erroneously denied a motion to seal the defendant’s competency evaluation, which the court considered in finding the defendant competent to stand trial.
No. 87350-0, State (respondent) v. Chen (petitioner).
Top
Criminal Law—Insanity—Conditional Release—Revocation—Validity—Current Dangerousness—Necessity—Hearsay Testimony—Right to Confront Witnesses
Whether the trial court in considering whether to revoke conditional release of a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity must find that the defendant is currently dangerous in order to revoke release, and whether the admission of hearsay testimony at the hearing to revoke conditional release violated the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.
No. 87726-2, State (respondent) v. Dang (petitioner).
168 Wn. App. 480 (2012)
Top
Criminal Law—Searches and Seizures—Constitutional Law—State and Federal Provisions--Expectation of Privacy—Right to Privacy—Text Messages Sent to Another Person’s Smart Phone
Whether police conducted a search in violation of the United States and Washington Constitutions when they viewed incoming text messages from the defendant on a confiscated smart phone and used the phone to set up a sham illegal drug transaction with the defendant.
No. 87663-1, State (respondent) v. Hinton (petitioner).
169 Wn. App. 28 (2012)
Top
*Divorce—Decree—Validity—Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Compliance With Statutory 90-Day Waiting Period—Necessity
Whether RCW 26.09.030, which states that a court shall enter a dissolution decree 90 days after a dissolution petition is filed if the other party joins in the petition or does not dispute that the marriage is irrevocably broken, is jurisdictional, precluding the court from entering a decree before expiration of the period.
No. 87680-1, In re Marriage of Buecking, Amy Buecking (respondent); Tim Buecking (petitioner).
167 Wn. App. 555 (2012) Published in Part
Top
Environment—SEPA—Impact Statement—Necessity—Threshold Determinaton—Significant Effects—Adequacy of Consideration—Exemptions—Energy Recovery Facility
Whether the Department of Ecology, in determining that no environmental impact statement was necessary for a proposed energy cogeneration project fueled by the burning of woody biomass, failed to adequately consider the effects of carbon dioxide emissions and demand for woody biomass from the state’s forests, and whether the project is exempt from impact statement requirements as part of an energy recovery facility that existed before January 1, 1989.
No. 88208-8, PT Air Watchers, et al. (appellants) v. State, et al. (respondents).
Top
Landlord and Tenant—Unlawful Detainer—Jurisdictional Requirements—Notice—Statutory Provisions—Degree of Compliance
Whether the trial court in an unlawful detainer action lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the landlord’s statutory notice to the tenants failed to inform the tenants they could respond by mail or facsimile. See RCW 59.18.365.
No. 81813-4, Torkild (respondent) v. Johnston (petitioner). STAYED PENDING BANRUPTCY
Top
Open Government—Public Disclosure—Exemptions—Other Statutory Exemptions—Privacy Act—Restriction on Disclosure of Law Enforcement Vehicle Video Camera Recordings—Scope
Whether the Washington Privacy Act’s prohibition on disclosure of police dashcam videos until final disposition of any litigation involving the recorded events permits the Seattle Police Department to delay disclosure under the Public Records Act for three years, the length of the statute of limitations on litigation.
No. 87271-6, Fisher Broadcasting-Seattle TV LLC d/b/a KOMO 4 (appellant) v. City of Seattle, et al. (respondents).
Top
Personal Restraint—Petition—Timeliness—Vacation of Previously Final Judgment—Resentencing—Effect
Whether vacation of a personal restraint petitioner’s previously final judgment and sentence and entry of a new judgment and sentence after resentencing restarted the one-year limit on collateral challenge to the conviction.
No. 87501-4, In re Pers. Restraint of Adams, Devon Adams (petitioner); State (respondent).
Top
Torts—Conversion—Acts Constituting—Unauthorized Use of Property—Software Code
Whether the owner of computer software code may assert a claim of conversion against another for unauthorized use of the code.
No. 87555-3, Corbis Corp. (petitioner) v. Stone, et al. (respondents).
Top
*Waters—Water Rights—Place of Use—Municipal Water Supply—Statutory Provisions—Validity—Due Process—Separation of Powers
Whether the Department of Ecology unconstitutionally applied the Municipal Water Law, RCW 90.03.330(3), to revive or expand Washington State University’s relinquished nonmunicipal groundwater rights when it allowed the university to withdraw all of the water allotted under its separate rights from any of its several well locations.
No. 88317-3, Cornelius, et al. (appellants) v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, et al. (respondents).
|
