Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Robin Farris filed six charges against the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer Dale Washam. Ms. Farris charged that Mr. Washam violated whistleblower protections, retaliated against his employees, grossly wasted public funds, failed to cooperate with discrimination and retaliation investigations, and violated his oath of office. Ms. Farris appeared pro se, and there were technical flaws with the filing of her six charges against Mr. Washam. Through the course of the proceedings, Ms. Farris amended her charges to comply with the courtâs rules of pleading. Mr. Washam contended that there was no statutory authority to allow the recall charges to be amended, and because the original filing was fatally flawed, the Supreme Court should dismiss the entire recall effort. On March 3, 2011, the Supreme Court entered a brief order that affirmed the lower courtâs decision to allow the recall effort to proceed. The Courtâs May 12, 2011 order set forth the reasons for its March decision. The Court affirmed the trial court in all aspects.

In 2006, Defendant Whatcom County (County) approved three land use applications for development in the Birch Bay urban growth area. Petitioner Whatcom County Fire District No. 21 (the Fire District) filed a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition to challenge the approvals. At issue between the parties was whether the completion of the proposed developments would reduce fire protection services to below an âadequateâ level of service. On review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the County had assigned the responsibility for assessing the adequacy of fire protection services to the Fire District. Because the Fire District determined the services it could provide would fall below an âadequateâ standard, the lower court properly granted its LUPA petition. The Court reversed the Countyâs approval of the land use applications for Birch Bay.

Kemper Freeman and several other Washington taxpayers appealed directly to the Supreme Court to try to stop the governor and other state officials from "taking any action" on plans to convert high-occupancy lanes on Interstate 90 into light rail lines. Though Petitioners asked the Court to grant a writ of mandamus, the Court found that Petitioners were essentially seeking a declaratory judgment to bar the State Department of Transportation from selling or leasing any portion of the Interstate for light rail use. The Court found that such a request was outside of it's jurisdiction, and refused to issue the writ.