Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In Washington State, most voters cast their votes by mail, and each voter must swear under oath that they are eligible to cast that ballot. Election workers must verify that the signature on the voter’s sworn ballot declaration matches the signature on file. If the signature cannot be verified, the ballot may be challenged, and if the voter does not cure their ballot in time, their vote will not be counted. The plaintiffs argue that this signature verification process results in some lawfully cast ballots not being counted, thus violating the due process, privileges and immunities, and freedom of elections clauses of the state constitution.The trial court denied all parties' summary judgment motions and adopted the Anderson-Burdick framework to determine the level of scrutiny for the case. The court concluded that additional factual development was required and reserved ruling on whether signature verification was severable from the rest of the statutory scheme. The defendants moved to certify the trial court’s order for immediate review, which the plaintiffs did not oppose. The court certified two questions for review: the appropriate standard of judicial review for the plaintiffs’ facial challenges and whether any party is entitled to summary judgment under that standard.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that signature verification, when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system, does not facially violate the state constitution. The court held that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment, reversing in part, affirming in part, and remanding for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court emphasized that the right to vote is fundamental and that the signature verification process, as part of a robust system of checks, provides both security and ease of voting. View "Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Mary Mercedes was accused of animal cruelty based on evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her property. Officers visited her property multiple times after receiving complaints about the condition of her animals. During these visits, Mercedes allowed the officers to view the animals, and based on their observations, a search warrant was later issued. The officers then seized the animals, and Mercedes was charged with two counts of animal cruelty.The trial court granted Mercedes's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the property visits, ruling that the officers' consent to enter was invalid without providing Ferrier warnings, which inform individuals of their right to refuse, limit, and revoke consent. The trial court dismissed the charges due to lack of probable cause. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Ferrier warnings were not required for the search of Mercedes's outdoor property and remanded the case to determine if her consent was voluntary.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Ferrier warnings are required only when officers seek to enter a person's home to conduct a warrantless search for evidence of a crime. Since the officers' visits to Mercedes's property were for investigative purposes and did not involve entering her home, Ferrier warnings were not necessary. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if Mercedes's consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Mercedes" on Justia Law

Angela Knight and her two children lived in a rental unit managed by the King County Housing Authority. In January 2023, the Housing Authority served a three-day notice to vacate due to alleged nuisance and criminal conduct, including unauthorized guests, excessive garbage, and activities leading to police reports involving shootings and stolen property. Despite previous warnings and a transfer to another unit, the issues persisted. When the Knights did not vacate, the Housing Authority filed for an unlawful detainer.A commissioner of the King County Superior Court ruled that the property fell under the CARES Act's 30-day notice requirement for evictions, as the Knights were given only three days' notice. Consequently, the unlawful detainer petition was denied, and the eviction action was dismissed without prejudice. The Housing Authority appealed this decision.The Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, held that the 30-day notice requirement under the CARES Act applies only to evictions for nonpayment of rent, disagreeing with Division Two's broader interpretation in a similar case. Andre Knight sought discretionary review from the Washington Supreme Court to resolve this conflict.The Washington Supreme Court held that § 9058(c) of the CARES Act requires a 30-day notice only for evictions due to nonpayment of rent. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, clarifying that the CARES Act's notice provision does not extend to all types of evictions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hous. Auth. v. Knight" on Justia Law

Several members of the public requested records from the Seattle Police Department (SPD) regarding officers who attended the January 6, 2021, rally in Washington, DC. The officers involved filed a lawsuit to prevent the release of their identities, arguing that their identities should be exempt from disclosure based on statutory and constitutional privacy rights. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the release of their identities within those public records.The King County Superior Court denied the officers' motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that the officers failed to show that the information in the public records was likely exempt from disclosure. The court also denied the officers' motion to proceed under pseudonyms. The officers appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction, concluding that the First Amendment prohibited the disclosure of the officers' identities. The Court of Appeals did not evaluate whether the disclosure would violate the officers' statutory right to privacy under the Public Records Act (PRA).The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and held that the officers did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits that their identities were exempt based on either a statutory or constitutional right to privacy. The court concluded that the officers did not have a privacy interest in their identities as public employees who attended a highly publicized event. The court also held that the officers did not show a need to litigate under pseudonyms. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "John Does v. Seattle Police Dep't" on Justia Law

A young child, Rustin Atkerson, tragically died from severe head trauma while under the care of his mother, Elaine Hurd, and her boyfriend, who had a history of domestic violence. Rustin's father, Ian Atkerson, and Rustin's estate sued the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), alleging that their negligent investigation into reports of Rustin's injuries, including a broken arm, led to his death.The trial court denied DCYF's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Atkerson only needed to prove ordinary negligence, not gross negligence, to prevail. The court also largely excluded the testimony of retired Judge Kitty Ann Van Doorninck, who was to testify that a reasonable judge would not have removed Rustin from his mother's care based on the information available at the time. The trial court found her testimony would be unduly prejudicial.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's rulings, holding that the applicable standard of care was gross negligence and that the trial court erred in excluding Judge Van Doorninck's testimony. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that RCW 4.24.595(1) applies to the early stages of child abuse and neglect investigations, requiring proof of gross negligence. The court also held that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Judge Van Doorninck's testimony, as her testimony was relevant to the core issue of whether any negligence by the State caused a harmful placement decision. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Atkerson v. State of Washington, Department of Children, Youth & Families" on Justia Law

Former Spokane police officer Jeffery Thurman was the subject of a June 13, 2019 article in the Spokesman-Review, owned by Cowles Co., which alleged he was fired for racial slurs, sexual harassment, and talk of killing black people. On June 14, 2021, Thurman filed a defamation lawsuit against Cowles Co. Shortly after, on July 25, 2021, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) took effect. Thurman amended his complaint on December 3, 2021, adding new factual allegations and a claim under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).The trial court partially granted Cowles' special motion for expedited relief under the UPEPA, dismissing Thurman’s CPA claim but denying the motion to dismiss the defamation claim, reasoning that the defamation claim was part of the original complaint. Cowles appealed the denial of expedited relief for the defamation claim, and Thurman cross-appealed the dismissal of his CPA claim.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the UPEPA applied to both Thurman’s defamation and CPA claims. The majority reasoned that the defamation claim was "asserted" on a continuing basis on the UPEPA’s effective date. The dissent argued that the defamation claim was not "asserted" on or after July 25, 2021, and thus the UPEPA did not apply.The Washington Supreme Court held that Thurman’s amended defamation claim relates back to the original complaint filed on June 14, 2021, and is not subject to the UPEPA. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings, deciding the case on statutory grounds and declining to address the constitutional arguments. View "Thurman v. Cowles Co." on Justia Law

Montreal Morgan participated in a home invasion robbery that resulted in the death of Fabian Alvarez. Following the incident, the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) paid $10,480 in benefits under Washington’s Crime Victims Compensation Act (CVCA) for Alvarez’s medical and funeral expenses. Morgan pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree. At his restitution hearing, Morgan requested a reduction in the restitution amount due to mitigating factors, but the trial court believed it lacked discretion under RCW 9.94A.753(7) and ordered the full amount of restitution requested by the State.The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which agreed that RCW 9.94A.753(7) does not afford trial courts discretion to impose less restitution than the amount of CVCA benefits paid. Morgan then petitioned for review, which was granted by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that RCW 9.94A.753(7) does not allow a trial court discretion to modify the amount of restitution owed to L&I for CVCA benefits. The court emphasized that the statutory language is unambiguous and requires the court to order restitution in the amount of benefits paid by L&I. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision and upheld Morgan’s restitution order, concluding that the trial court correctly interpreted the statute as mandating full restitution for CVCA benefits without discretion for reduction based on mitigating factors. View "State v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Freedom Vans LLC, a company that converts and customizes vans into mobile houses, hired Jeremy David and Mark Springer. David, a self-taught carpenter, was hired in 2019 and later promoted to foundations manager. Springer, an automotive and maritime mechanic, was hired in 2020 as an electrician. Both employees earned less than twice the minimum wage and signed a noncompete agreement prohibiting them from engaging in any business that competed with Freedom Vans. They claimed they declined additional work offers due to fear of termination and legal action. They stopped working for Freedom Vans in 2021.David and Springer filed a class action lawsuit in 2022, alleging the noncompete agreement violated chapter 49.62 RCW, which regulates noncompete clauses in employment contracts. They sought damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. The superior court granted summary judgment to Freedom Vans, reasoning that RCW 49.62 does not restrict an employer’s right to require employee loyalty and avoidance of conflicts of interest. The court denied Freedom Vans' request for attorney fees. Both parties appealed.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that noncompete agreements for employees earning less than twice the minimum wage must be reasonable and narrowly construed in light of the legislature’s intent to protect low wage workers and promote workforce mobility. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding that prohibiting employees from providing any kind of assistance to competitors exceeds a narrow construction of the duty of loyalty. The case was remanded to the superior court to determine the reasonableness of the noncompete agreement and assess damages and attorney fees. View "Springer v. Freedom Vans LLC" on Justia Law

J.M.H. pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in juvenile court in 2022. The trial court judge issued a disposition order with certain conditions, which J.M.H. violated multiple times. In October 2022, the judge issued a warrant for her arrest. J.M.H.'s lawyer challenged the warrant, arguing it did not comply with JuCR 7.16, the rule for issuing juvenile warrants. The trial court denied the motion, and J.M.H. appealed.The appeal was reviewed by the Court of Appeals. By that time, the trial court judge who issued the warrant had been appointed to the Court of Appeals and sat on the panel reviewing his own decision. The panel dismissed the appeal, stating the order was not appealable under RAP 2.2(a). J.M.H. sought discretionary review, arguing it was reversible error for the judge to sit on the appellate panel.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. The court held that a judge cannot review an appeal of a decision they made as a trial court judge in the same case, citing In re Murchison and In re Dependency of A.N.G. The court found that this violated due process and required automatic reversal. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "State v. J.M.H." on Justia Law

Barry Chrisman was seriously injured when a tree fell on his work vehicle while driving through a riparian management zone (RMZ) in a recently logged forest area. The RMZ, a buffer of trees left standing to benefit wildlife and water quality, was part of the Lugnut timber area managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Chrisman and his employer sued the State of Washington, Sierra Pacific Industries, and Precision Forestry Inc. for negligence, arguing that the defendants were not immune under the Forest Practices Act of 1974, which provides immunity for forestland owners when a tree required to be left standing in an RMZ falls and causes injury.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that they were immune under the statute as forestland owners required to leave the RMZ trees standing. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The appellate court held that Sierra and Precision were not forestland owners because they did not have the right to harvest RMZ trees and that only entities with the authority to determine RMZ parameters are entitled to immunity. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the RMZ was properly drawn.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and held that the defendants are immune under the Forest Practices Act. The court determined that the statute provides broad immunity to forestland owners, including those in actual control of the land with the right to sell or dispose of timber. The court concluded that Sierra and Precision fit the definition of forestland owners and that the immunity applies regardless of whether the RMZ was properly drawn. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County v. State" on Justia Law