Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Paul Chan Kim murdered his partner, Baerbel K. Roznowski, after officer Andrew Rensing of the Federal Way Police Department served Kim with an antiharassment order forbidding him to contact or remain near Roznowski. Roznowski's two daughters filed suit against the city of Federal Way, alleging that Rensing's negligent service of the order resulted in Roznowski's death at Kim's hands. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict against the City. The City claims the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment and its motion for judgment as a matter of law because it owed Roznowski no duty under the public duty doctrine, foreclosing any tort liability. The Supreme Court disagreed. The City had a duty to serve the antiharassment order on Kim, and because it had a duty to act, it had a duty to act with reasonable care in serving the order. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's denial of the City's motions, although on different grounds than those relied on by the Court of Appeals. View "Washburn v. City of Federal Way" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case was whether the search of Lisa Byrd's purse was a search of her person. Because the purse was in her lap when she was arrested, it was an article of her person under the long-standing "time of arrest" rule. If the arrest was lawful, the arresting officer was entitled to search Byrd's person and articles closely associated with her person without showing the search was motivated by particularized concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded this case for further trial court proceedings. View "Washington v. Byrd" on Justia Law

In late 2008, Cost Management Services Inc. (CMS) reviewed its years of tax payments made to the City of Lakewood. In examining the relevant regulations, CMS decided that it did not in fact owe the tax that it had been paying. In November 2008, it stopped paying the tax and it submitted a claim to Lakewood for a refund of taxes it had previously paid from 2004 to September 2008. Lakewood did not respond to the request for a refund of the 2004-2008 tax payments. But six months later, in May 2009, it issued a notice and order to CMS demanding payment of past due taxes for a different time period-October 2008 to May 2009. CMS did not respond to the notice and order from Lakewood. Instead, CMS sued Lakewood in superior court on its refund claim, asserting a state common law claim of money had and received. The trial court held a bench trial and found in favor of CMS, ruling that CMS did not owe the taxes it had paid to Lakewood. In addition (in a separate action), the trial court granted CMS 's petition for a writ of mandamus ordering Lakewood to respond to the refund claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that since Lakewood had never actually responded to the refund claim, CMS had no further administrative steps available to it on the refund claim, and thus exhaustion was not required. The appellate court also ruled that the trial court had properly issued the writ of mandamus. Lakewood sought review of the Court of Appeals' decisions on the exhaustion and the mandamus issues. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals as to the exhaustion issue, but reversed the Court of Appeals as to the mandamus issue. View "Cost Mgmt. Servs. v. City of Lakewood" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case involved the validity of an amended rule from the Department of Ecology that reserved water from the Skagit River system for future year-round out-of-stream uses, despite the fact that in times of low stream flows these uses would impair established minimum in-stream flows necessary for fish, wildlife, recreation, navigation, scenic and aesthetic values. The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (Tribe) sued, challenging the validity of Ecology's amended rule reserving the water. The trial court upheld the amended rule and dismissed the Tribe's petition. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that Ecology erroneously interpreted the statutory exception as broad authority to reallocate water for new beneficial uses when the requirements for appropriating water for these uses otherwise cannot be met. "The exception is very narrow, however, and requires extraordinary circumstances before the minimum flow water right can be impaired." Because the amended rule exceeded Ecology's authority under the statute, the amended rule reserving the water was invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). View "Swinomish Indian Tribal Comm'y v. Dep't of Ecology" on Justia Law

Stewart Title Guaranty Company hired the law firm Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole, PS to defend its insured, Sterling Savings Bank, from a claim of lien priority on real property by a construction company. The claim was resolved in favor of the construction company, and Stewart Title sued the firm for malpractice. Witherspoon moved for summary judgment arguing it owed a duty to the client Sterling Bank and not Stewart Title, and that the alleged malfeasance (not arguing equitable subrogation) was not a viable argument in the lien priority suit. The trial court ruled against Witherspoon on the first, no-duty, ground but agreed with it on the second, no-breach, ground. The court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Witherspoon. Stewart Title appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in dismissing Stewart Title's malpractice case on the basis that Witherspoon owed Stewart Title no duty. The Court did not address the subrogation issue. View "Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling Sav. Bank" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether a trial court may allow a witness to be accompanied by a comfort animal, here a dog, when testifying during trial. Generally, wide discretion is given to the trial court to control proceedings, including the manner in which testimony will be presented. Here, the trial court acted within its broad discretion when it determined that the facility dog provided by the prosecutor's office to the victim was needed in light of the victim's severe developmental disabilities in order for the victim to testify adequately. View "Washington v. Dye" on Justia Law

Dayva Cross pled guilty to killing his wife and two of her three daughters in 2001 for which he was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence after direct review. In his first personal restraint petition challenging the judgment and sentence, Cross contended, among other things, that an "Alford" plea was insufficient to support capital punishment and asked the Supreme Court to vacate his sentence and remand to the trial court with direction that the Alford plea be set aside. After review, the Court held that a capital sentence could be predicated on an Alford plea and denied that portion of Cross' personal restraint petition. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Cross" on Justia Law

Benjamin Brockie was convicted of 2 counts of first degree robbery, 15 counts of first degree kidnapping, and 2 counts of making bomb threats. Brockie asked the Supreme Court to vacate those convictions because the jury was instructed on a means of committing first degree robbery that was not included in the charging information. Since Brockie failed to show actual and substantial prejudice resulting from the erroneous instruction, the court denied his request for relief. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Brockie" on Justia Law

The State charged defendant Jeffrey Lynch with indecent liberties and second-degree rape. At trial, defendant's argued the State failed to prove forcible compulsion because the alleged victim, T.S., consented to the sexual intercourse. Over defendant's objection, the trial court instructed the jury that defendant had the burden to prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury found defendant guilty of the crimes charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's second-degree rape conviction but reversed the indecent liberties conviction. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the trial court violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to control his defense by instructing the jury on the affirmative defense over his objection and that such error was not harmless. View "Washington v. Lynch" on Justia Law

William Kurtz challenged the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm his conviction for possession and manufacturing of marijuana. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his request to raise a common law medical necessity defense. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court held that medical necessity remained an available defense to marijuana prosecution and that the Washington State Medical Use of Marijuana Act did not abrogate the common law. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Kurtz" on Justia Law