Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James R. Hardman and his mother Alice Hardman, certified professional guardians, are the court-appointed guardians of more than twenty Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) clients residing at the Fircrest School, a residential habilitation center (RHC) in the city of Shoreline. The Hardmans also engage in extensive advocacy activities, lobbying officials at the local, state, and federal levels to keep Fircrest and other RHCs open and to oppose efforts to place Fircrest residents in community-based programs that the Hardmans believe provide inadequate care. In their triennial guardian reports, the Hardmans requested compensation for their advocacy activities. DSHS opposed the fee requests, arguing that the advocacy work was outside the scope of the guardians' duties. The Court of Appeals denied the Hardmans' request for advocacy fees, finding that the advocacy work did not provide a direct benefit to the indidivual wards. Upon review of the trial court record and the parties' appellate briefs, the Supreme Court found that the Hardmans were not entitled to the compensation because the advocacy activities were neither individualized to serve a particular ward's best interests nor necessary to perform their guardianship duties. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "In re Guardianship of Lamb" on Justia Law

Petitioner Helen Immelt sounded a car horn at length in front of a neighbor’s house in the early morning hours. She was arrested for violating a Snohomish County noise ordinance that included amongst its prohibited noise disturbances horn honking for a purpose other than public safety, or originating from an officially sanctioned parade or other public event. She challenged the horn ordinance as overbroad and in violation of free speech protections. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the ordinance was overbroad, and reversed Petitioner's conviction. View "Washington v. Immelt" on Justia Law

The issue central to this case involved a Public Records Act (PRA) request and a definition of the scope of discovery allowed in PRA-provoked lawsuits, what constitutes an adequate search for requested records, and whether a party may be prevailing when it possesses some responsive documents at the time suit is filed. On February 16, 2005, a copy machine at Spokane County's Building and Planning Department (BPD) printed copies of an undated office seating chart. This chart showed cubicle arrangements of employees at the BPD, but it also included two names within a cubicle of those who had not yet been hired, designated “Ron & Steve.” This caused quite a stir among the BPD employees, many of whom already suspected the BPD of illegal hiring practices. On February 19, 2005, the chart and an accompanying letter were anonymously transmitted to the Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County (the Alliance). The Alliance took interest in this matter when Steve Harris, son of the BPD Commissioner, and Ron Hand, a former employee, were hired in March. Essentially, the Alliance wanted to know when the “Ron & Steve” seating chart was created. It sought to prove, using the BPD’s own records, that the undated chart was created prior to job postings for the positions later filled by Ron and Steve. The Alliance petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding discovery was contrary to case law and that the Court rejected the Freedom of Information Act's (FOIA) “prevailing party” doctrine. The County cross-petitioned. It argued the appellate court’s decision created a new cause of action under the PRA because it significantly heightened the requirements of an adequate search, and such penalties will continue to accrue until the date of final judgment, including all appeals, thereby punishing an agency for exercising its right to appeal. The Supreme Court held that discovery in a PRA case is the same as in any other civil action and is therefore governed only by relevancy considerations, The Court adopted FOIA standards of reasonableness regarding an adequate search. The Court partly and partly affirmed the appellate court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane" on Justia Law

A public school teacher or other certificated employee discharged by a school district may obtain review by a hearing officer and appeal an adverse decision of the hearing officer to superior court. But the legislature did not give school districts the right to appeal an adverse hearing officer decision. When a hearing officer decided in favor of Petitioner David Vinson and against Respondent Federal Way School District, the school district sought review of the decision by statutory writ of certiorari. The superior court denied the writ, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding sufficient cause to terminate Vinson. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the statutory writ was not available to the school district. In contrast, the constitutional writ was always available to a party seeking relief from arbitrary, capricious, or illegal acts. However, the Court found that the hearing officer acted within the limits of his statutory authority, and his final decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the attorney fees awarded by the superior court. View "Federal Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson" on Justia Law

RCW 60.04.091(2) requires mechanics' liens to be "acknowledged pursuant to chapter 64.08 RCW." In other words, an authorized person must certify in writing that the signor executed the lien freely and voluntarily. RCW 60.04.091(2) also includes a sample claim of lien that the statute states "shall be sufficient" but that does not include language satisfying the acknowledgment requirement. Contractors Athletic Fields Inc. and Hos Bros.Construction Inc. each filed claims of lien that used the sample form and did not contain certificates of acknowledgment. In each case, the lower court concluded the lien was invalid. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial courts and held that a claim of lien in the sample form is valid despite the absence of a proper acknowledgment. View "Williams v. Athletic Field, Inc." on Justia Law

The attorney general of Washington made the State a plaintiff in a multistate lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform legislation recently passed by Congress. The city of Seattle sought a writ of mandamus directing the attorney general to withdraw the State of Washington from the litigation. Upon review of the applicable statutory authority, the Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus was not available because the attorney general had no clear duty to withdraw the State of Washington from the federal litigation: "[s]tatutory authority vests the attorney general with the discretionary authority to participate in the litigation at issue. [The Court] also determine[d], however, that this result is not constitutionally compelled; the Washington Constitution does not vest the attorney general with any common law authority. It is for the people of the state of Washington, through their elected representatives or through the initiative process, to define the role of the attorney general." View "City of Seattle v. McKenna" on Justia Law

On certification from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, the Supreme Court considered whether the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA), and Washington’s laws prohibiting driving while under the influence (DUI) are inadequate to promote the public policies underlying them. Plaintiff Matthew Cudney, whose employment was terminated by ALSCO Inc., asserted a claim in federal court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for reporting that a managerial employee drove a company vehicle during business hours while that employee was intoxicated. The issues presented for certification pertained to (1) whether WISHA adequately promotes the public policy of insuring workplace safety and protecting workers who report safety violations so as to preclude a separate claim by a terminated employee for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and (2) whether the DUI laws adequately promote the public policy of protecting the public from drunken drivers so as to preclude a separate claim by a terminated employee for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. In response, the Court held that both WISHA and the state’s DUI laws adequately promote the stated public policies. View "Cudney v. Alsco, Inc." on Justia Law

Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark sought a writ of mandamus to compel Attorney General Robert McKenna to pursue an appeal of a trial court decision in a condemnation action. Although Mr. McKenna provided representation at the trial court, he refused to pursue the appeal based on his evaluation of the merits of the case. The commissioner wished to appeal, which he discussed with his general counsel, an assistant attorney general. Then the commissioner and the attorney general exchanged correspondence and met on at least one occasion, but the attorney general refused to file the appeal for the commissioner. The attorney general also refused to appoint a special assistant attorney general (SAAG) to pursue the appeal for the commissioner. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the issue in this case was one of first impression: the Court had never been "squarely presented" with an instance of the attorney general refusing to represent a state officer on an appeal. "Under the statutes, the responsibility is clear." Because the Court found no discretion within the attorney general’s statutory duty, the Court issued the writ and directed the attorney general to provide the commissioner with legal representation. View "Goldmark v. McKenna" on Justia Law

Appellants Kim Koenig, Lawrence Koss and Althea Paulson sought review of two separate superior court orders that enjoined disclosure of investigative records compiled by the Cities of Puyallup and Mercer Island. The records contained results of internal police department investigations whereby Appellants complained of gross officer misconduct. Appellants argued the records were wrongfully withheld. The appellate court affirmed withholding the records, interpreting case law that held police investigative records relating to an arrest was exempt from retention and copying under state law. The Supreme Court rejected the appellate court's interpretation: "the statute does not exempt information relating to the conduct of the police during the investigation." The Court reversed the trial courts with direction that the trial courts redact the offending officers' identities, but that the description of the police department's investigation should have been produced. View "Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City Of Puyallup" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether RCW 82.02.020, which generally prohibits local governmental bodies from imposing taxes or fees on development, applied to shoreline master programs (SMP) created pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1981. Members of the Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning (CRSP) owned land regulated under Whatcom County's SMP. The group filed a complaint alleging, in part, that the regulations contained in the SMP constituted a direct or indirect tax, fee or charge on development in violation of RCW 8202.020. The superior court dismissed the claim for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The appellate court affirmed. Upon review of the implicated legal authorities, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: "[w]hile local jurisdictions play a role in tailoring SMPs to local conditions, the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020." View "Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning v. Whatcom County" on Justia Law