Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Respondents John Karpinski, Clark County Natural Resources Council and Futurewise (challengers) filed a petition with the Growth Management Hearings Board alleging Clark County was not in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Challengers specifically argued that under the Act's requirements, the various lands affected by a 2007 local zoning ordinance designated as agricultural land of long-term commercial significance (ALLTCS) could not be designated as an urban growth area (UGA) by the ordinance. The cities of Camas and Ridgefield began proceedings to annex certain parcels of the disputed lands designated UGA by the 2007 ordinance. The Challengers did not contest the annexations, nor did any party bring the annexation proceedings to the attention of the Board. The Board ultimately found that Clark County was not in compliance with the GMA, specifically finding that certain land designations from the 2007 ordinance were clearly erroneous, including designation of the annexed lands as UGA. Multiple parties were permitted to intervene, and the Board's decision was appealed. The superior court entered an order that resolved various claims on appeal, including claims related to the annexed lands. The court reversed the Board's finding that Clark County's designation of a portion of the annexed lands as UGA was erroneous. The Challengers thereafter appealed the superior court's order. The ultimate issue before the Supreme Court in this case was one of appellate procedure: whether the court of appeals erred by reviewing separate and district claims that had been resolved but were not actually raised on appeal. THe parties did not challenge the disposition of those claims, thus those claims were finally adjudicated. However, the appellate court addressed the abandoned claims sua sponte and reversed the lower court's unchallenged rulings. The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's opinion reversing the superior court's unchallenged rulings. View "Clark County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Review Bd." on Justia Law

Petitioner Daniel Flaherty attempted to file a motion to vacate his 2005 conviction for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance with the Spokane Superior Court. In 2009, Petitioner was considered a "career offender" and subject to an increased sentence for a federal conviction. Petitioner tried to file his motion on the grounds that his attorney failed to advise him that pleading guilty would contribute to the "career offender" determination. The court refused the file the motion as untimely. Petitioner appealed, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court reversed: "it is plainly not part of the clerk's ministerial function to determine whether a collateral challenge is timely." View "Washington v. Flaherty" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Yates, Jr. filed a personal restraint petition following the Supreme Court's decision to affirm his death sentence. Petitioner was sentenced in 2000 to 408 years in prison for thirteen counts of aggravated first degree murder and one count of attempted first degree murder. In 2002, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated first degree murder, for which he received the death penalty. Petitioner raised 25 grounds for relief covering a host of legal issues, including procedural errors at trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias and public trial rights. The Court found that no merit to any of Petitioner's claims, and dismissed Petitioner's restraint petition. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Yates" on Justia Law

Dr. James Haviland was a medical doctor who practiced in the Seattle area. Several years after the death of his first wife, the 85-year-old Dr. Haviland met 35-year-old Mary Burden who worked at the hospital where he was a patient. Following his discharge, the two began dating, and the doctor agreed to pay towards Ms. Burden's education and gave her an additional "nest egg." The couple married in 1997. The day before the wedding, Dr. Haviland changed his will to include his new wife, and revised it several more times during the marriage. The 2006 amendment allowed the doctor's total probate estate to pass to his new wife, excepting several special bequests. Ms. Haviland amended the doctor's living trust, transferred securities for her own benefit, and made multiple large cash gifts to her family members. Large sums of money were also transferred from the couple's joint checking account to Ms. Haviland's separate account. After Dr. Haviland died, his children contested the multiple amendments to his will. The trial court ultimately found that the estate was "so depleted by Mary's transfer of funds that, after distribution of specific bequests, the total value of the estate is a negative." The court invalidated the will after finding that the 2006 amendment was the product of undue influence. During the pendency of the contest, the Washington legislature amended the slayer statutes to disinherit those who financially abuse vulnerable adults. In light of the amendments, the administrator of the doctor's estate requested the trial court to determine whether Ms. Haviland should have been disinherited based on her conduct with respect to Dr. Haviland and as found by the trial court. The court determined that the abuser statutes did not apply to deny Ms. Haviland benefits from the estate since the statutes were triggered by financial abuse. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the petition filed during probate to adjudicate whether an individual is an abuser was the triggering event for the statutes to apply, and as such, acted prospectively applied to the Haviland estate. Ms. Haviland appealed the appellate court's holding. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concurring that the abuser statutes act prospectively, and that the filing of the abuser petition during probate is the trigger. View "In re Estate of Haviland" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned the adjudication of water rights in the Yakima River Basin. The parties brought various challenges to the conditional final order of the trial court determining their water rights. The Court of appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court for direct appeal. Upon review, the Court reversed the trial court's decision concerning the quantification of irrigable land on the Yakama reservation, and reversed the trial court's determinations regarding the Nation's right to store water. The Court affirmed the trial court's conclusions regarding the rights of nontribal claimants to excess water, but reversed the application of the "future development excuse" under RCW 90.14.140(2)(c) for nonuse of a water right. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of several individual water rights claims. View "In re Rights to Waters of Yakima River Drainage Basin (Acquavella)" on Justia Law

Appellant Catherine Lakey and twelve other homeowners owned property that bordered a parcel owned by Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (PSE) on which there was an electrical substation. The homeowners sued PSE and the City of Kirkland after PSE constructed a new substation on PSE property. The homeowners sought review of the trial court's decision to exclude testimony of their expert under the "Frye" rule, and the court's ultimate decision to grant summary judgment on behalf of PSE. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court improperly excluded the expert's testimony under the "Frye" rule but properly excluded it under the Rules of Evidence ER702. Furthermore, the Court reversed the trial court's decision with respect to their Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) claims, finding that LUPA did not apply to the homeowners' inverse condemnation claim. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy" on Justia Law

In Washington, a liability insurer unclear of its obligation to defend an insured may invoke a "reservation of rights" defense while it seeks a declaration regarding coverage. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether the insurer may unilaterally condition its reservation on making the insured absorb defense costs if a court ultimately determines there is no coverage. The Supreme Court responded in the negative: "we recognize…that an insurer may avoid or minimize its responsibility for defense costs when an insured belatedly tenders a claim and the insurer demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice as a result." View "Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Immunex Corp." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether a domestic violence protection order that included a child visitation provision qualified as a "court-ordered parenting plan" under Washington's first degree custodial interference statute, RCW 9A.40.060(2). Upon review, the Court concluded that it did not, because the legislature specifically created the phrase "court-ordered parenting plan" as a term of art to refer to a document created under chapter 26.09 RCW. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for dismissal of Petitioner Jose Veliz, Jr.'s custodial interference conviction for insufficient evidence. View "Washington v. Veliz" on Justia Law

In 2009, Philip Haberthur nonjudicially foreclosed on Petitioner Steven Schreoder's property. Petitioner attempted to restrain the sale on grounds that his land was agricultural and not subject to nonjudicial foreclosure. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the parties to a deed of trust may waive the statutory requirement that agricultural land must be foreclosed judicially. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "although the procedure here was admittedly convoluted," the trial court abused its discretion in failing to restrain the sale of Petitioner's property without first determining whether the land was agricultural, and for dismissing Petitioner's other claims on summary judgment. The Court held that agricultural land must be foreclosed judicially; parties may not waive the statute. The Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Schroeder v. Excelsior Mgmt. Grp., LLC" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was a challenge to two provisions of the voter-enacted RCW 43.135.034 (2011) (Initiative 1053). The first provision required that any bill containing tax increases be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature, and the second provision required that any tax bill increasing state spending above a prescribed limit be approved by the voters. The Court addressed only whether the challenges to the provisions were justiciable and whether they violated the Washington Constitution. A superior court found both provisions justiciable but that the supermajority requirement and referendum requirement both violated the Constitution. The State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court affirmed the superior court's holding that one provisions were justiciable, and that justiciable provision, the supermajority requirement, violated Article II, section 22 of the state Constitution. However, the Court reversed the superior court's decision that the referendum provision was justiciable. Accordingly, the Court made no determination as to its constitutionality. View "League of Educ. Voters v. Washington" on Justia Law