Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court considered whether a tribal police officer who observed Defendant Loretta Lynn Eriksen commit a traffic infraction on the Lummi Reservation could validly stop her outside the reservation and detain her until county police arrived. The Court concluded that the tribe’s inherent sovereign powers did not authorize this extraterritorial stop and detention. "While the territorial limits on the Lummi Nation’s sovereignty create serious policy problems, such as the incentive for intoxicated drivers to race for the reservation border, the solution does not lie in judicial distortion of the doctrine of inherent sovereignty. Instead, these issues must be addressed by use of political and legislative tools, such as cross-deputization or mutual aid pacts, to ensure that all law enforcement officers have adequate authority to protect citizens’ health and safety in border areas. We urge the Lummi Nation and Whatcom County to work together to solve the problems made evident by this case; but if they can or will not do so, we will not manipulate the law to achieve a desirable policy result." Accordingly, the Court concluded the stop and detention of Defendant were invalid. The Court reversed the superior court’s decision and remand to the district court for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Eriksen" on Justia Law

Ten special education students and their parents and guardians (Appellants) sued Clover Park School District for intentional torts, outrage, negligence and unlawful discrimination under state law. Clover Park moved for summary judgment to dismiss, arguing that Appellants had not exhausted the administrative remedies available under the state Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The trial court granted Clover Park’s motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case, holding that IDEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement does not apply to state-law claims nor does Washington State law require exhaustion before filing such claims. View "Dowler v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400" on Justia Law

Flight Options, LLC challenged the constitutional and statutory authority of the Department of Revenue to assess apportioned property taxes against a fleet of airplanes it managed. Specifically, Flight Options argued that its airplanes did not have a tax situs in Washington state, and that the due process clause of the federal constitution prohibited assessment of taxes on them. Upon review of the briefs submitted and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court rejected each of Flight Options’ contentions and affirmed the lower court decision dismissing Flight Options’ case. View "Flight Options, LLC v. Dep't Of Revenue" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Kenneth Thorgerson on four counts of child molestation. On appeal, he contended that his convictions should be reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct at trial. Upon careful review of the trial court’s record, the Supreme Court found that some of the conduct Defendant challenged was not misconduct and that which was did not constitute reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence. View "Washington v. Thorgerson" on Justia Law

Appellant William Brousseau was convicted of first degree rape and of child molestation. The court held a pretrial hearing to determine whether the alleged victim was competent to testify and whether her out-of-court statements were admissible under Washington's child hearsay exception. The court heard testimony from Appellant's witness, a psychologist who had interviewed the child, but did not permit Appellant to call the child as a witness. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the trial court abused its discretion by finding the victim competent without examining her at the competency hearing. He also claimed that the court's refusal to allow testimony from the victim at the competency hearing denied him due process of law. After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the child victim was competent to testify. Additionally, the Court held that the state child hearsay exception does not require a child to testify at a child-hearsay hearing and that Appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Appellant's convictions. View "Washington v. Brousseau" 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

King County sought ways to provide legal defense services to indigent criminal defendants. The County settled on a system of using nonprofit corporations to provide services funded through and monitored by the County's Office of the Public Defender (OPD). Over time, the County took steps to improve and make these nonprofit organizations more accountable to the County. In so doing, it asserted more control over the groups that provided defender services. Respondents are employees of the defender organizations who sued the County for state employee benefits. They argued the County's funding and control over their "independent" organizations essentially made them state employees for the purposes of participating in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Applying the pertinent statues and common law principles, the Supreme Court agreed that employees of the defender organizations are "employees" under state law, and, as such, are entitled to be enrolled in the PERS. View "Dolan v. King County" on Justia Law