Charles W. Johnson

This case concerned a preelection challenge by the King County Prosecuting Attorney to Initiative 18, a proposal by the King County Corrections Guild to amend the county charter by reducing the council from 13 to 9 members and placing the matter before voters. The superior court ruled the initiative exceeded the scope of the initiative power under the state constitution and county charter, relying on precedent distinguishing amendments from repeals. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the initiative power allows voters to propose ordinances amending the charter, as it is distinct from repealing the entire charter and is authorized by relevant constitutional and charter provisions permitting voter-initiated changes.

electionsprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Clark County Public Utility District and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers over layoffs of ten union employees, where the union claimed the district violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by failing to make efforts to place the workers in other available positions as required by portions of the district's personnel policy manual incorporated into the CBA. The arbitrator ruled for the union after interpreting the CBA as ambiguous and finding that the district had not complied with its obligations. The trial court and Court of Appeals vacated the award, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that judicial review of labor arbitration awards is extremely limited and extends only to whether the arbitrator exceeded the authority granted by the parties, not to the merits of the arbitrator's legal conclusions or contract interpretations. The court concluded the arbitrator had acted within her authority by construing the CBA and fashioning a remedy.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case was a judicial disciplinary proceeding against part-time municipal court Judge Steven Michels, who also served as a public defender and private attorney in the same courts. The Commission on Judicial Conduct found that Michels violated Canons 1, 2(A), 3(A)(1), and 3(D)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct by presiding over criminal cases involving defendants he had previously represented as counsel, failing to disqualify himself, and accepting guilty pleas without advising defendants of the elements of the crimes or obtaining proper written statements as required by CrRLJ 4.2. Michels admitted the conduct but argued the recommended sanction was excessive. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the Commission's recommendation of censure and a 120-day suspension without pay, plus a requirement to complete an approved judicial training course before resuming duties, reasoning that the violations undermined public confidence in judicial impartiality and that the sanction aligned with precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether a vacant tax lot purchased by Rory Crispin at a 1990 auction had been legally created under a 1972 Seattle ordinance and chapter 58.17 RCW governing land divisions. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that tax lot 164 was a legally created lot exempt from subdivision requirements. The court reasoned that the 1972 reconfiguration of boundaries among three existing parcels into three condominiums and one vacant lot constituted a boundary line adjustment that created no new lots, triggering the statutory exemption in RCW 58.17.040(6).

property

The case concerned the admissibility of evidence of prior sexual misconduct with a child under Evidence Rule 404(b) to prove a common scheme or plan in a prosecution for second-degree rape of a child and child molestation. The Washington Supreme Court held that such evidence requires only substantial similarities between the prior acts and the charged conduct that indicate a common plan, rejecting any need for the method to be unique or atypical. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the prior acts involving a 10-year-old girl—near-nudity, massages, and sexual contact with warnings not to disclose—showed marked similarities to the charged acts with a 12-year-old girl that naturally suggested a common grooming plan.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Goldberg, the defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder after killing his son-in-law, who was expected to testify as a witness in a pending marriage dissolution proceeding involving child custody. The trial court had ordered the jury to continue deliberating on a special verdict form for the aggravating circumstance after the jury initially returned a non-unanimous 'no' answer, and the jury ultimately found the factor proved, leading to a life sentence without parole. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the underlying murder conviction, holding that the statutory aggravating factor under RCW 10.95.020(8) applies even when the defendant is not a party to the proceeding where the victim was to testify. However, the court vacated the aggravating factor finding, reasoning that special verdicts need not be unanimous to be final and that ordering further deliberations after the jury's initial response improperly coerced the verdict.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

This consolidated case involved challenges by six individuals to their civil commitments as sexually violent predators under Washington's chapter 71.09 RCW. The Washington Supreme Court addressed whether fact finders must make a separate determination of serious difficulty controlling behavior (based on Kansas v. Crane), whether less restrictive alternatives must be considered at the initial commitment hearing, and whether actuarial instruments predicting future dangerousness are admissible. The court held that no separate jury finding on volitional control is required beyond the statutory elements, that less restrictive alternatives need not be considered initially and are addressed only in annual reviews, and that such instruments are admissible if they meet ER 702 standards. These rulings were grounded in U.S. Supreme Court precedents on due process limits for civil commitments, the structure of the SVPA, and evidentiary rules for reliability.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a claim by a minor child, through her guardians, against the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) alleging negligent investigation of reported child abuse. DSHS employees had physically examined the child during the investigation after her natural father made allegations against her foster parents, and the child claimed the examination caused her posttraumatic stress disorder. The trial court dismissed the claim on summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the claim, holding that the statute creates a duty only for biased or faulty investigations that result in a harmful placement decision such as removing a child from a nonabusive home or failing to remove one from an abusive home. Because the alleged harm was from the examination process itself rather than any placement decision, no viable negligent investigation claim existed.

family lawtorts & liability

This case involved a constitutional challenge by business groups to Initiative 773, a voter-approved measure that imposed additional taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products to fund low-income health care programs while protecting revenues for existing state programs such as violence reduction and water quality. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the State, upholding the initiative against claims that it violated article VIII, section 4 (by creating appropriations beyond a single biennium), article II, section 19 (single-subject and subject-in-title rules), and article II, section 37 (amendment disclosure requirements). The court reasoned that the initiative imposed taxes without mandating perpetual appropriations, as future legislatures retained authority to appropriate funds each biennium, and that the title and provisions gave adequate notice without logrolling or hidden amendments. The decision rejected arguments that earmarking revenues for specific accounts created unconstitutional ongoing commitments or misleading titles.

taxeshealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Norman W. Cohen arising from his representation of a client in an employment lawsuit against the Department of Corrections. Cohen failed to prepare and file a substantive response to a summary judgment motion, did not timely comply with a court order to elect between a nonsuit or paying sanctions for a continuance, neglected to inform his clients that their case had been dismissed with prejudice, and billed the clients for an appeal that resulted from his own misconduct. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the Disciplinary Board's findings of violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and imposed a six-month suspension from the practice of law followed by two years of probation.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Puget Sound Energy (PSE) seeking coverage from non-settling insurers for environmental cleanup costs at multiple Washington sites after receiving settlements from other insurers. The non-settling insurers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the settlement funds already covered PSE's known liabilities at those sites and that PSE had been made whole. The Washington Supreme Court held that the non-settling insurers bear the burden of establishing the right to and amount of any offsets to avoid double recovery, consistent with prior precedent in Weyerhaeuser and Pederson's. It remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on unresolved factual issues regarding allocation of the settlement proceeds.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

In Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., a route driver for a vending machine company sued his employer claiming entitlement to overtime pay under the Washington Minimum Wage Act after switching to a commission-based pay plan that included a base salary plus a percentage of sales. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer under the retail sales exemption in RCW 49.46.130(3), but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the exemption required employees to be involved in selling. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's ruling, holding that the exemption applies to all employees of retail or service establishments who are paid commissions meeting the statutory requirements, not just those directly engaged in sales, consistent with the statute's text and federal regulatory interpretations.

labor & employment

In this attorney disciplinary case, John L. McKean represented clients facing financial difficulties and advised them to dismiss their bankruptcy and form a corporation to shield assets from creditors; he then entered a joint ownership agreement with the clients, used over $11,000 from his lawyer trust account (initially recorded against other clients' ledgers) to fund the venture, and failed to obtain proper consents, document the loans, or notify affected parties. The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the WSBA Disciplinary Board's recommendation of a six-month suspension followed by six months of probation based on findings that McKean had violated rules governing conflicts of interest, trust account misuse, and fiduciary duties. The court adopted the hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the improper business transaction and trust fund handling. It affirmed the recommended sanction, holding that the conduct warranted suspension to protect the public and maintain professional standards.

procedure

The consolidated cases involved Washington wine distributors challenging terminations or replacements by out-of-state suppliers under Chapter 19.126 RCW, which imposes notice, cause, and compensation requirements on suppliers in their dealings with distributors. The Supreme Court of Washington held that the statute's express exemption of in-state wineries from the definition of "supplier" facially discriminates against out-of-state suppliers in violation of the dormant commerce clause. The court further ruled that the Twenty-first Amendment does not save the exemption because it does not advance core concerns of that amendment, and that the exemption is not severable from the rest of the chapter, requiring the entire statute to be invalidated. The court also affirmed dismissal of the distributors' common-law claims and the award of attorney fees to the prevailing parties.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved whether a prior 1986 statutory rape conviction counted as a strike under Washington's two-strike Persistent Offender Accountability Act when sentencing defendant Dumas Delgado for first-degree rape of a child and first-degree child molestation committed in 1999. The trial court declined to treat the prior conviction as a strike because statutory rape was not among the offenses expressly listed in the statute in effect at the time of the current crimes. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the prior conviction should count. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the statute's language was unambiguous, listed only specific offenses, and contained no comparability clause allowing unlisted but factually similar offenses to qualify as strikes. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's sentence.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute between homebuilder Calibre Homes and Williamson, Inc., along with its affiliated brokerage Masters, over unpaid real estate commissions after Calibre terminated an exclusive agency agreement for selling developed lots. Williamson, Inc., a corporation formed by licensed salespersons Curtis and Betsy Williamson, had operated under Masters without obtaining its own salesperson license under Washington's Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons Act (REBSA). The trial court granted summary judgment to Calibre, finding Williamson, Inc. unlicensed and thus barred from suing for compensation, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the substantial compliance doctrine applies to REBSA licensing requirements and that Williamson, Inc. met them because its licensed agents were properly associated with a licensed broker, satisfying the statute's goals of oversight and preventing unlicensed activity. The core reasoning focused on the fact that the licensed individuals fully complied with REBSA, and the corporate form did not undermine the protective purposes of the licensing regime.

business & regulatoryproperty

In State v. Read, the defendant was charged with second-degree murder after shooting and killing an unarmed man during a confrontation at a motel party, claiming he acted in self-defense. The trial court admitted lay witness testimony opining on the reasonableness of the defendant's use of deadly force, and after a bench trial, convicted him. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence to raise a valid self-defense claim under the subjective and objective tests required by RCW 9A.16.050, so any error in admitting the testimony was not constitutional. The court further reasoned that in a bench trial, absent contrary evidence, the judge is presumed not to have relied on any inadmissible testimony when reaching the verdict. The Court of Appeals' decision was upheld on these grounds.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit filed by Jeff Kamla, an employee of a fireworks contractor hired by the Space Needle Corporation, against the Space Needle after he was injured when his safety line was caught by an elevator on the jobsite. Kamla claimed the Space Needle owed him duties of care under common law retained control over the contractor's work, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act, and as a landowner to an invitee. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed dismissal of the retained control and statutory claims on the grounds that the owner lacked actual control over the manner of work and the statute did not impose a duty on the jobsite owner, but reversed dismissal of the invitee claim because a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the owner should have anticipated harm from an obvious danger.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case concerned whether a community property agreement executed by a married couple could be terminated by implication when their marriage became defunct due to separation. The Washington Supreme Court held that such agreements do not terminate by operation of law upon the marriage becoming defunct and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to imply a termination clause. The court reasoned that community property agreements are contracts that courts must enforce as written, without adding implied terms absent evidence of the parties' intent at execution, and that existing law only allows termination through final divorce decrees or mutual assent. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding.

family lawproperty

The case involved Boeing appealing decisions ordering it to pay permanent partial disability awards to former employees for occupational noise-related hearing loss under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act. Boeing sought to reduce the awards by using a statistical method to segregate and subtract portions attributable to age-related hearing loss (presbycusis) from the work-related component. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Labor and Industries, Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, and superior courts, ruling that state law does not permit such reductions in PPD benefits to account for aging's contribution to hearing loss, consistent with precedent in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Tri. The court also resolved related issues on the reliability of audiograms for determining the extent and timing of disability and upheld awards of attorney fees to the workers.

labor & employment