Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Multiple cases were consolidated cases in this opinion, all stemming from a 2007 flood of the Chehalis River in Lewis County. In its first review, the Washington Supreme Court considered the trial court's orders dismissing the cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; a majority of the Court held that "RCW 4.12.010 relates to venue, not jurisdiction" and therefore "reverse[d] and remand[ed] for further proceedings." the respondents promptly moved to transfer venue to Lewis County in each case. Over the petitioners' objections, the trial court granted the respondents' motions. Those transfer orders were at issue here. The Supreme Court held that respondents did not waive their objections to proper venue for these actions, but that as a matter of statutory interpretation, RCW 4.12.010(1) did not provide for exclusive proper venue in Lewis County. King County was another possible proper venue in accordance with RCW 4.12.020(3) and 4.12.025(3). The Court therefore reversed the trial court's orders transferring venue to Lewis County to the extent those orders were based solely on exclusive proper venue. It was unclear from the record if the trial court considered whether venue should be transferred to Lewis County for the convenience to the witnesses, so the Court remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion on that issue in a manner consistent with its decision here. View "Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co." on Justia Law

Tenants Michael Brown and Jill Wahleithner received a notice of eviction from landlords Stephen Faciszewski and Virginia Klamon, invoking Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 22.206.160(C)(1)(e). In accordance with that provision, the notice stated Landlords were terminating the tenancy because "[Landlords] seek to possess the Property so that at least one immediate family member (or, in the alternative, one of us) may occupy the [Seattle] Property as a principal residence." Landlords subsequently clarified that Faciszewski's parents would be moving into the house so that Faciszewski could care for his ailing father. Following his father's death, Faciszewski indicated that only his mother planned to move into the house. Because of an earlier dispute, Tenants believed that Landlords' stated reason was pretext. Tenants thus began researching Faciszewski's parents on the Internet and found that Faciszewski's mother: (1) owned a home in Colorado that was not listed for sale or for rent; (2) she was scheduled to teach a class at a Colorado center in the fall; (3) she volunteered at a Colorado hospital for many years and continued to do so; and ( 4) she had not informed the center or the hospital of any plans to move. Citing this information, Tenants complained to the City, and in response Landlords filed with the City a certification of intent to carry out the stated reason. Because the certification provided that "[Faciszewski] or/and ... his mother" would occupy the property, Tenants continued to believe Landlords' stated reason was a pretext. Accordingly, Tenants refused to comply. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review was whether the trial court could consider evidence challenging just cause once the landlord filed the certification allowed under Seattle Municipal Code 22.206.160(C)(4). The court commissioner presiding over the show cause hearing set the matter for trial after determining that there were issues of fact as to the landlords' stated reason for the eviction. The King County Superior Court revised the commissioner's ruling, issued a writ of restitution restoring possession of the property to the landlords, and struck the trial date because "the statutory scheme does not require ... a trial once [the landlord files a] statement under penalty of perjury." The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the law afforded the tenant to contest the eviction at the show cause hearing. View "Faciszewski v. Brown" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a certain governmental charge imposed on Indian tribes was a tax. After the legislature amended a statute to expand the types of tribal property that were eligible for a property tax: exemption, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe applied for and received an exemption on its Salish Lodge property pursuant to the amendment. As required by statute, the tribe negotiated and paid an amount to the county in lieu of taxes. The issue before the Washington Supreme Court centered on the constitutionality of this payment in lieu of tax (PILT). The Court found that the PILT was not a tax at all but, rather, a charge that tribes pay to compensate municipalities for public services provided to the exempt property. View "City of Snoqualmie v. King County Exec. Constantine" on Justia Law

Jan DeMeerleer murdered Rebecca Schiering and her nine year old son Philip, and attempted to murder Schiering's older son, Brian Winkler. After the attack, DeMeerleer committed suicide. DeMeerleer had been an outpatient of psychiatrist Dr. Howard Ashby for nine years leading up to the attack, during which time he expressed suicidal and homicidal ideations but never named Schiering or her children as potential victims. At issue in this case was whether Ashby, as a mental health professional, owed DeMeerleer's victims a duty of care based on his relationship with DeMeerleer. After review, the Supreme Court held that Ashby and DeMeerleer shared a special relationship and that special relationship required Ashby to act with reasonable care, consistent with the standards of the mental health profession, to protect the foreseeable victims of DeMeerleer. Ashby conceded the existence of a special relationship between him and DeMeerleer; the foreseeability of DeMeerleer's victims was a question of fact appropriately resolved by the fact finder. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part and reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of the medical negligence claim. View "Volk v. DeMeerleer" on Justia Law

In consolidated cases, the issue presented for the Washington Supreme Court’s review was whether the State could offer a driver's refusal to take a breath test under Washington's implied consent statute, RCW 46.20.308, as evidence of guilt at a criminal trial after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in “Missouri v. McNeely,” (133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013)). In the two cases here, an officer asked each defendant to submit to a breath test. Dominic Baird agreed to the test; Collette Adams refused it. Baird's test results showed a BAC above the legal limit. Pretrial, both defendants moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the breath test was a request to consent to a warrantless search and they had a constitutional right to refuse consent. Consequently, the State could not use their refusal as evidence of guilt. Baird further argued that because the officer told him that his refusal could be used as evidence, the officer coerced his consent through an unlawful threat, thereby invalidating his consent. The State took the position that the defendants had no constitutional right to refuse because the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applied in all DUI cases. Due to the body's natural elimination of alcohol from the bloodstream as time passes, the delay necessary to obtain a warrant is impractical since the delay will cause the destruction of DUI evidence. The Washington Supreme Court found that the district courts correctly rejected the State's argument that alcohol dissipation constituted exigency per se. The Court held that the implied consent statute did not authorize a warrantless search, and a driver has no constitutional right to refuse a breath test because such a search falls under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Further, although the implied consent statute gives a driver a statutory right to refuse the test, by exercising the privilege to drive, a driver consents to admitting that refusal to take the breath test into evidence. Accordingly, the Court held that a driver's refusal was admissible as evidence of guilt under Washington's implied consent law. View "Washington v. Baird" on Justia Law

Mark Black challenged his commitment as a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW. He contended that his commitment had to be vacated because he was not present when some potential jurors were questioned individually in open court about their prior experiences with sexual abuse. After its review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded Black waived his right to be present while jurors were individually questioned about these sensitive subjects. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to that court for further proceedings. View "In re Det. of Black" on Justia Law

Noel Caldellis shot into a crowd of people outside a party, killing one. He was charged with first degree murder "[u]nder circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life." The jury was given a "to-convict" instruction modeled on the relevant pattern jury instruction, which itself was modeled on subsection RCW 9A.32.030(l)(b). After Caldellis' trial, the pattern jury committee amended the relevant pattern instruction to require an additional "element" that "the defendant knew of and disregarded the grave risk of death." Among other things, Caldellis argued his conviction should have been set aside because the jury was not required to find this new "element" in his case. The Supreme Court held the instruction given in Caldellis' trial included the required elements of the crime and was sufficient. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Caldellis" on Justia Law

Island County's board of commissioners hired Susan Drummond and her law office to provide legal services. Providing legal services was among the duties of county prosecuting attorneys as combined civil and criminal county counsel. Island County's prosecuting attorney, Gregory Banks, objected to Drummond's appointment because his office was able and willing to provide the necessary legal advice. Prosecutor Banks brought a quo warranto action challenging Drummond's usurpation of his elected public office. The superior court denied the claim on summary judgment, holding that the board of commissioners had the authority to freely hire outside counsel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the county board of commissioners did not possess statutory authority to appoint outside counsel over the objection of an able and willing prosecuting attorney. View "Washington ex rel. Banks v. Drummond" on Justia Law

The City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss a civil suit filed by pro se litigant John Worthington. He responded by filing a special motion to strike under the Washington Act Limiting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statute). The trial court denied the motion and imposed financial sanctions on Worthington on grounds that the anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The Supreme Court found only that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court on the issue of the monetary sanction: the statute under which authority the trial court used in applying the sanctions was made invalid at the time of Worthington's anti-SLAPP motion. View "Worthington v. City of Bremerton" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Earl Flippo of four counts of child molestation in 2008. Flippo timely appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the verdict and sentence in 2010. The Court of Appeals dismissed Flippo's first personal restraint petition (PRP) in 2011. In 2015, Flippo filed his second PRP, arguing for the first time that the sentencing court imposed discretionary legal financial obligations without having performed an individualized inquiry into his ability to pay. The Court of Appeals dismissed Flippo's PRP on the basis that it was untimely, and Flippo appealed that decision. The Washington Supreme Court granted discretionary review, found no reversible error in the dismissal of Flippo's case, and affirmed. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Flippo" on Justia Law