Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

WestNET was a multiagency, multijurisdictional drug task force formed by an "Interlocal Drug Task Force Agreement" executed in June 2009 among several Washington State municipalities and the federal Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS). The Agreement at issue here explicitly provided that because WestNET "does and must operate confidentially and without public input," "[t]he parties do not intend to create through, this Agreement, a separate legal entity subject to suit." In 2010, petitioner John Worthington filed a public records request that WestNET disclose records related to a raid of his residence four years earlier, which he alleged was conducted by the WestNET drug task force. WestNET did not respond, and instead, the Kitsap County Sheriffs Office made some initial disclosures. The sheriffs office did not indicate why it responded instead of WestNET. Dissatisfied with the response, Worthington sued for relief under the Public Records Act, serving the complaint on the address shared by the Kitsap County Sheriffs Office and the Kitsap County Prosecutor's Office. However, the complaint named WestNET as the only defendant. Because the trial court granted the defendant's CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the issue presented for the Supreme Court's review was a narrower procedural issue: can the parties to an inter local agreement establish, as a matter of law, that their own task forces do not exist for the purpose of the PRA? The Court held that the ICA did not provide the contributing agencies with such an unqualified power. In concluding that the terms of the agreement alone conclusively established WestNET's capacity for suit, the trial court deprived the plaintiff of an opportunity to present evidence in support of his argument that WestNET's actual operational structure subjects it to the PRA's purview. That approach is inconsistent with our general approach to PRA issues and the ICA itself. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further factual determination proceedings. View "Worthington v. WestNET" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on a challenge to the State Liquor Control Board's spirits distribution licensing fee structure brought by Association of Washington Spirits and Wine Distributors (Association). Specifically, the Association challenged the Board's decision to exempt distillers who distribute their own manufactured spirits and others acting as distributors pursuant to certificates of approval from contributing to a shortfall of $104.7 million in licensing fees imposed on persons holding spirits distributor licenses. The Association asked the Supreme Court to hold that the distillers must contribute proportionately to eliminating the shortfall. The Court rejected the Association's arguments, holding that the Board acted within its authority and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Additionally, the Board did not violate the privileges and immunities clause of article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution. View "Ass'n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Liquor Control Bd." on Justia Law

ln consolidated cases, petitioners brought an untimely challenge to San Juan County's issuance of a garage-addition building permit. Petitioners did not receive notice of the permit application and grant until the administrative appeals period had expired. Thus, petitioners claim that the Washington Supreme Court's interpretation of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, required them to appeal a decision without actual or constructive notice of it. Acknowledging a strong public policy supporting administrative deadlines, the Supreme Court found: (1) petitioners were required to exhaust available administrative remedies to obtain a land use decision; (2) there were no equitable exceptions to the exhaustion requirement; (3) the plain language of LUPA says as much; and (4) there was no due process violation because petitioner had no constitutionally protected property interest in the denial of his neighbor's land-use permit. View "Durland v. San Juan County" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review centered on whether the city of Lakewood's explanation for redacting driver's license numbers from records produced for David Koenig was inadequate and, if so, whether Koenig was entitled to attorney fees. In October 2007, Koenig requested three sets of records from the city :(1) records about the arrest and prosecution of a Lakewood police detective in January 2005 for patronizing a prostitute; (2) records about a November 2006 auto accident in the city of Fife, where a Fife police officer struck a pedestrian with his patrol car and the Lakewood Police Department assisted with the investigation; and (3) records about Tacoma police officer Michael Justice's 1998 arrest and subsequent prosecution on fourth degree assault charges. In November 2007, the city advised Koenig by letter that responsive records were available for review and pickup. The city redacted, among other things, driver's license numbers from various types of documents it produced. The city justified the redaction of driver's license numbers by citation to certain statutes. Koenig questioned the city's reliance on the statutes it cited, asking the city to specify which exemption it claimed under RCW 42.56.240 and to clarify whether the it was also claiming driver's license numbers were exempt under the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (FDPPA). The city supplemented its earlier citations to the pertinent statutes. Thereafter, the city warned Koenig that it was "prepared to prosecute a declaratory judgment action decreeing that it fully complied with" Koenig's requests. Koenig filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the city had not met its burden. Furthermore, he argued he was entitled to attorney fees for the violation of the statute's brief explanation requirement, regardless of whether the numbers were ruled exempt. The Supreme Court held that the city's response was inadequate and Koenig was entitled to fees. View "City of Lakewood v. Koenig" on Justia Law

This case centered on the interpretation of a state tax deduction statute. Former RCW 82.04.4292 (1980) provided that in computing their business and occupation (B&O) tax, banks and financial institutions could deduct from their income "amounts derived from interest received on investments or loans primarily secured by first mortgages or trust deeds on nontransient residential properties." Between 2004 and 2007, petitioner Cashmere Valley Bank invested in mortgage-backed securities known as real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs). Cashmere claimed that interest earned on these investments was deductible under RCW 82.04.4292. Upon further review, the Supreme Court concluded Cashmere could not claim the deduction because its investments in REMICs and CMOs were not "primarily secured" by first mortgages or trust deeds. The ultimate source of cash flow was mortgage payments. However, Cashmere's investments were not backed by any encumbrance on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default. Thus, Cashmere's investments were not "primarily secured" by mortgages or trust deeds. View "Cashmere Valley Bank v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

In this class action lawsuit, the trial court found that the State wrongfully denied health benefits to a number of its part-time employees. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was how to value the damages suffered by that group of employees when they were denied health benefits. The State argued that the only damages to the employees were immediate medical expenses paid by employees during the time they were denied health benefits. But evidence showed that people denied health care benefits suffer additional damage. They often avoid going to the doctor for preventive care, and they defer care for medical problems. This results in increased long-term medical costs and a lower quality of life. Based on this evidence, the trial court correctly rejected the State's limited definition of damages because it would significantly understate the damages suffered by the employees. The Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moore v. Health Care Auth." on Justia Law

The Washington Department of Retirement Services (DRS) and the State of Washington appealed an order granting summary judgment to a class of public employee unions and unaffiliated employees and holding that the 2011 repeal of legislation granting future uniform cost of living adjustments (UCOLA) to the respondents' monthly pension payments was an unconstitutional impairment of the State's contractual obligation with its employees. The Supreme Court found that because the legislature reserved its right to repeal the pension rights at issue and the original enactment of UCOLA did not impair any existing contract rights of state employees. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Wash. Educ. Ass'n v. Dep't of Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Washington legislature's 2007 repeal of gain sharing-a pension enhancement provided in years of extraordinary investment return-unconstitutionally impaired the contract between the State and its employees. The Court held that the legislature reserved its right to repeal a benefit in the original enactment of that benefit and the enactment did not impair any preexisting contractual right. As to the employees' alternative argument, the Court held that the explanatory materials provided by the Department of Retirement Systems (DRS) do not rise to the level of making a promise or creating an inconsistent statement and thus reject the employees' contention that the state was estopped from repealing the gain-sharing benefit at issue in this case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's award of summary judgment to the employees. View "Wash. Educ. Ass'n v. Dep't of Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

In early 2013, Pierce County detained the 10 respondents in this case (all patients) under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA). In most cases, the respondents were initially held in hospital emergency rooms or in local acute care medical hospitals. None of these sites were certified as evaluation and treatment centers under the ITA. In all cases, the county, through one of its designated mental health providers, filed petitions to hold the respondents for up to 14 more days. Several of the involuntarily detained patients moved to dismiss these 14-day petitions on the grounds that they had not been, and believed they would not be, detained in a certified evaluation and treatment facility. A trial judge found that the patients' placement in uncertified treatment centers, a/k/a "psychiatric boarding," was unlawful. Pierce County appealed, but the Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge and affirmed. View "In Re Det. of D.W." on Justia Law

The Certified Professional Guardianship Board (Board) has petitioned the Supreme Court to suspend guardian Lori Petersen for actions stemming from her guardianship of D.S. and J.S. Petersen has been a certified professional guardian since 2001. She owned and operated Empire Care and Guardianship, a large agency serving over 60 wards. From December 2009 until April 2010, the Board received a number of grievances and complaints regarding Petersen's treatment of three wards who were all, at one point, housed at Peterson Place, an adult family home. Petersen contended that suspension was improper and suggested:(1) the Board ran afoul of separation of powers principles; (2) violated the appearance of fairness doctrine; (3) impermissibly lowered the evidentiary standard; and (4) failed to consider the proportionality of the sanction. The Supreme Court agreed with Petersen as to her last contention: "She has questioned, albeit obliquely, the proportionality of the sanction, and so the Board should have considered the sanction's magnitude relative to those imposed in other cases. Accordingly, we remand to the Board to conduct a consistency analysis pursuant to its internal regulations" and the Court's opinion. View "In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Petersen" on Justia Law