Susan Owens

This case involved a certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking whether Washington law treats early termination fees (ETFs) in fixed-term wireless service contracts offered by Clearwire as alternative performance provisions or as liquidated damages clauses subject to penalty analysis. The plaintiffs, a group of customers, had entered into one- or two-year contracts with discounted monthly rates and faced ETFs ranging from flat $180 fees to diminishing amounts starting at $220 when they sought to cancel early due to dissatisfaction with service. The Washington Supreme Court held that the ETFs are alternative performance provisions, not liquidated damages clauses. The core reasoning was that, at the time of contracting, the ETFs provided customers with a real option between paying the fee to terminate or continuing payments to fulfill the contract, and the two alternatives were of relatively equal value depending on the timing of termination.

business & regulatory

In State v. Hurst, the defendant was charged with third-degree assault, a felony, but proceedings were stayed after he was twice found incompetent to stand trial and committed for 90-day competency restoration periods. When he remained incompetent, the state sought a third commitment of up to 180 days, raising the question of whether due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to prove the statutory criteria—dangerousness or likelihood of criminal acts and a substantial probability of restored competency—by clear and convincing evidence rather than the statutory preponderance standard. Applying the Medina framework for challenges to criminal procedural rules rather than Mathews balancing, the Washington Supreme Court held that the preponderance standard satisfies due process because the overall statutory scheme provides adequate protections to ensure fundamental fairness. The court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the commitment order entered on the jury's findings under the lower evidentiary standard.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from the property distribution in the dissolution of Kenneth Treiger and J'Amy Lyn Owens' marriage, where a home (the Maplewood property) was sold and its proceeds placed in trust, with Bank of America claiming rights via a prior writ of attachment. The Washington Supreme Court held that the Supplemental Decree created an equitable lien on the property in favor of Treiger for one-half of the net sale proceeds and that Documents 1375 and 1376 were valid judgments supporting additional awards to him, while Document 1370 was not given separate effect. The court reasoned that the decree's explicit award language established the lien under principles of equitable distribution and applied statutory construction rules prioritizing the judgment summary requirements of RCW 4.64.030(3) to determine the validity and priority of the various post-decree orders. It further concluded that the absence of required summaries rendered some documents ineffective as judgments despite their substantive content.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Robert May, who was convicted under a Seattle ordinance for violating a permanent domestic violence protection order by contacting his ex-wife multiple times in 2005. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the collateral bar rule prevented May from challenging the validity of the protection order in the criminal proceeding unless the order was void, which it was not, and that the order provided sufficient notice that violation was a criminal offense. The court reasoned that the superior court had jurisdiction to issue such orders, so any errors did not make the order void and subject to collateral attack, and relied on prior precedent regarding due process notice requirements.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In Mohr v. Grantham, the plaintiffs sued multiple physicians and a hospital for medical malpractice, alleging that negligent delays in neurological assessment, diagnosis of a stroke, and administration of appropriate treatment after a car accident substantially reduced Linda Mohr's chance of avoiding or minimizing permanent brain damage. The Washington Supreme Court held that a cause of action for loss of chance exists in medical malpractice cases even when the ultimate harm is serious injury short of death. The court reasoned that this extends the doctrine recognized in Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative, under which a plaintiff can establish proximate causation by showing that the defendant's negligence probably caused a substantial reduction in the chance of a better outcome, and therefore reversed the order granting summary judgment to the defendants.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case concerned whether the Washington Supreme Court should issue a writ of mandamus ordering the state attorney general to withdraw Washington as a plaintiff from a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The court held that mandamus was unavailable because the attorney general possessed discretionary statutory authority under RCW 43.10.030 to initiate or participate in litigation on behalf of the state. It further reasoned that the Washington Constitution does not confer common-law powers on the attorney general and that the scope of the office is instead defined by statute or constitutional provisions enacted by the people.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

Matthew Cudney sued his former employer ALSCO for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, alleging he was terminated after reporting that a manager drove a company vehicle while intoxicated. The U.S. District Court certified questions to the Washington Supreme Court asking whether WISHA and state DUI laws adequately promote the public policies of workplace safety and protecting the public from drunk drivers. The court held that both sets of laws provide adequate means to promote those policies, precluding a separate common-law tort claim. It reasoned that the statutes include enforcement mechanisms, remedies, and anti-retaliation protections sufficient to safeguard the policies without needing an additional judicially created exception to at-will employment.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Flight Options LLC, an Ohio-based company managing a fleet of private aircraft for charter and fractional ownership programs, challenged Washington Department of Revenue assessments of apportioned property taxes on the fleet for 2005 and 2006. The company contended that the aircraft lacked a tax situs in Washington under the Due Process Clause, that it was not an "airplane company" under chapter 84.12 RCW because it did not own the planes, and that the fractional owners could not be taxed as such. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the assessments, ruling that habitual landings and takeoffs in the state established a tax situs and that Flight Options qualified as the taxable operating company under the statute.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned a property dispute arising from the sale of residential land via statutory warranty deed, where the buyers faced an adverse possession claim from neighbors regarding a fence encroachment, and the seller settled the claim rather than defending the title in court. The court decided that the seller breached the warranty to defend by failing to provide a good faith defense, and that the buyers did not waive the deed's warranties by not disclosing the encroachment shown in their survey. The core reasoning was that the duty to defend title requires a good faith effort to litigate the merits of the claim upon tender, rather than independently deciding to settle and pay damages if cheaper, and that precedent establishes grantees may rely on deed covenants even with knowledge of potential defects.

property

This case involved Kittitas County and several development-related petitioners challenging two final orders from the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, which found that the county's 2006 and 2007 updates to its comprehensive plan and development regulations violated the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the Board exceeded its authority, misinterpreted the GMA, or lacked substantial evidence in its rulings on rural element documentation, protection of rural character and agricultural lands, provision of varied rural densities, airport zoning, and water resource safeguards. The court held that the Board correctly identified GMA violations regarding the lack of a written rural element record, insufficient protections for rural areas and agriculture, inadequate variety in rural densities, and water resources, but reversed the Board's finding of noncompliance with the airport overlay zone. It declined to address certain issues like application of a bright-line density rule or specific development regulations. The decision rested on direct application of GMA statutory requirements for comprehensive planning and evidence in the administrative record.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Mutch, the defendant was convicted of five counts of second-degree rape and one count of second-degree kidnapping after a series of assaults on a victim over one night. Following the vacation of his original life sentence as a persistent offender, the trial court imposed an exceptional sentence of 400 months at resentencing, based on the defendant's high offender score exceeding the sentencing grid maximum and the fact that multiple current offenses would otherwise go unpunished. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the corrected offender score of 16 remained sufficiently high to justify the exceptional sentence under applicable statutes, that the trial court had authority to impose it, and that the sentence did not violate double jeopardy protections. The court rejected challenges to the offender score calculation and the procedural basis for the resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a recall petition filed against Rick Heiberg, the mayor of Coulee City, Washington, which initially contained 11 charges of alleged misconduct. The superior court ruled that two charges were factually and legally sufficient to support a recall election: one alleging that the mayor improperly purchased a town truck without council approval or bidding, and another alleging that he authorized the destruction of a no-confidence resolution. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding both charges factually insufficient. For the truck purchase, the court found no evidence of intent to violate the law, noting the mayor's prompt reimbursement and lack of prior training on purchasing rules. For the resolution, the court determined there was no factual basis showing the mayor destroyed or directed the destruction of any records.

electionsprocedure

In State v. Sims, the defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree child molestation and received a suspended SSOSA sentence that included a lifetime ban from residing in or entering Cowlitz County except for limited travel. Sims appealed only the geographic restriction, which the State conceded was unconstitutional; the State then sought full resentencing without filing a cross-appeal. The Washington Supreme Court held that remand must be limited to revising the invalid condition. The court reasoned that broader resentencing would grant the State affirmative relief it had not properly requested and would chill defendants' constitutional right of direct appeal under article I, section 22 by deterring challenges to isolated unlawful sentencing terms.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Whatcom County's approval of three land development applications in the Birch Bay urban growth area, which the Whatcom County Fire District No. 21 challenged under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) on grounds that the projects would drop fire protection services below adequate levels. The hearing examiner and county council approved the applications despite the Fire District's refusal to issue concurrency letters confirming adequate service capacity, relying instead on the county's comprehensive plan and projected tax revenues from new growth. The Washington Supreme Court granted the Fire District's LUPA petition and reversed the approvals. The court reasoned that the county had delegated responsibility for assessing fire service adequacy to the Fire District through its regulations, making the absence of concurrency letters fatal to the approvals under RCW 36.70B.030.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case consolidated two appeals from convictions based on evidence obtained during warrantless vehicle searches incident to arrest, which occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant limiting such searches. In one case the Court of Appeals held the issue was waived by failure to object at trial, while in the other it rejected the claim without addressing Gant. The Washington Supreme Court held that principles of issue preservation and waiver do not preclude defendants from raising the constitutional objection for the first time on direct appeal when the cases were still pending at the time of Gant. It therefore reversed the Court of Appeals in both matters but remanded for suppression hearings because the parties lacked incentive to develop the record earlier.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a commercial landlord (RP Bellevue) and tenant (Optimer) over an arbitration clause in their lease that stated the arbitrator's decision would be 'final and non-appealable.' After an arbitrator ruled in Optimer's favor on lease violations, RP Bellevue sought limited judicial review in superior court to vacate or modify the award under the Washington arbitration act then in effect. The superior court dismissed the request, finding the lease language constituted a valid waiver of review. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lease did not validly waive statutory judicial review because the governing arbitration law at the time of the lease prohibited parties from altering the boundaries of such review, and prior precedent confirmed parties could not expand or eliminate those statutory limits.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a challenge by several Washington school districts to the state's funding system for special education, claiming it violated the state constitution's requirement to make ample provision for education. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the lower court's decision that the funding mechanism, which includes the Basic Education Allotment, excess funding, and a safety net for high costs, does not violate the constitution. The court applied the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to assess constitutionality and determined that the existing procedures adequately fund special education without relying on unconstitutional excess levies. The reasoning emphasized that special education students receive the full basic allotment plus additional support, meeting the state's paramount duty.

civil rights

The case concerned whether Charles Post qualified as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under Washington law, with the State seeking his civil commitment after his release from prison for prior rape and burglary convictions. At the second SVP determination trial, the trial court admitted evidence about the treatment program and conditions at the Special Commitment Center if Post were committed, as well as the possibility of later release to a less restrictive alternative, but excluded evidence that Post could face a new SVP petition if he committed a recent overt act after release. The Washington Supreme Court held that evidence of post-commitment treatment and release options was irrelevant to the question of current SVP status and its admission was prejudicial error, while evidence about the potential for a new petition based on a recent overt act was relevant and admissible. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals reversal and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether metadata associated with emails received by a city official must be disclosed as public records under Washington's Public Records Act. The O'Neills requested all metadata from an email chain involving allegations of improper conduct by the Shoreline City Council, after the city provided printed emails but some header and forwarding information was missing or inadvertently deleted. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that such metadata qualifies as a public record subject to disclosure, based on the Act's broad definition of "writing" that encompasses data compilations and the principle that metadata is integral to the electronic document. The court remanded the case to determine whether the requested metadata remains on the official's computer hard drive.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned James Ervin's 2006 sentencing for felony violation of a protection order, specifically whether two prior class C felony convictions should be included in his offender score under Washington's sentencing guidelines or had washed out after five consecutive years without new convictions. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that Ervin's 17 days of incarceration for a misdemeanor probation violation did not interrupt the washout period, so the prior felonies could not be counted and resentencing was required. The court reached this conclusion through de novo statutory interpretation of RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c), finding the language ambiguous but determining that legislative intent, canons of construction, and acquiescence to prior case law established that only confinement pursuant to a felony conviction interrupts the five-year period in the community without subsequent convictions.

criminal lawprocedure