Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ray Sandberg served in the United States Navy during World War II. Afterward, he worked for decades in dockyards and lumberyards. Throughout his work life, he had been exposed to asbestos. He contracted lymphoma, pleural disease and asbestosis relating to asbestos exposure. In 1999, he sued nearly 40 defendants who had some part in exposing him to asbestos. Most defendants settled; of the one that did not, Sandberg obtained a $1.5 million judgment. At age 84, Sandberg died. His daughter Judy Deggs, as personal representative of Sandberg's estate, sued additional companies that had not been named in her father's original lawsuit. The record of this case does not explain why the additional companies were not named in the 199 suit. The defendants here moved to dismiss this suit as time barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On appeal, Deggs argued that the wrongful death claim she brought was a distinct statutory claim and that her injuries were not the same injuries her father suffered and sued for in 1999: her injuries were due to the loss of her father, which did not occur until he died. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, finding that "[a] wrongful death 'action accrues at the time of death' so long as there is 'a subsisting cause of action in the deceased' at the time of death subject to exceptions no present here." The Court found insufficient cause to abandon that well-established precedent in this case. View "Deggs v. Asbestos Corp." on Justia Law

The Washington Supreme Court granted review of a challenge to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's decision on the validity of Whatcom County's comprehensive plan and zoning code under the state Growth Management Act (GMA). The County argued that the Board's conclusions were based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, and asked the Supreme Court to rule that the County's comprehensive plan protected the quality and availability of water as required by the Act. After review, the Supreme Court rejected the County's arguments, finding that the plan did not satisfy the GMA requirement to protect water availability, and that the remaining arguments made were unavailing. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded this case back to the Board for further proceedings. View "Whatcom County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd." on Justia Law

In this personal restraint petition (PRP), the petitioner Bobby Colbert challenged his 2005 conviction for second degree rape, arguing the Washington Supreme Court's decision in "Washington v. W.R.," (336 P.3d 1134 (2014)), which held that instructing the jury that the defendant bears the burden to establish the victim's consent was error, should apply retroactively, and to his case. He argued: (1) that his PRP overcame the one-year time limit under chapter 10.73 RCW because the decision in "W.R." either involved statutory interpretation exempt from the time bar; or (2) was a significant change in the law material to his conviction that required retroactive application. The Court held that W.R. did not apply retroactively and denied the petition as time barred. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Colbert" on Justia Law

In "Taggert v. Washington," (822 P.2d 243 (1992)), the Washington Supreme Court held that the State could be held liable for crimes committed by parolees if those crimes resulted from the State's negligence in supervising the parolees. Plaintiffs asked the Court to extend "Taggert" to hold that a county jail could be held liable for crimes committed by a former inmate. The crimes at issue in this matter were committed well after the inmate served his time, and long after the county had any duty (or ability) to supervise him. The former inmate in this case was incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, and released approximately one year later. Shortly after release, the former inmate had a psychotic episode and went on a shooting spree, killing six people and injuring several others. Some of his victims and their families (plaintiffs) sued a number of parties, thus implicating the "Taggert" holding. Plaintiffs argued that the jail could have prevented the inmate from committing crimes after he was released, but the Court concluded a jail's duty to supervise and control inmates during incarceration did not include a general duty to somehow prevent inmates from committing crimes after they are lawfully released from incarceration. The Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment order in favor of Skagit County. View "Binschus v. Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

The Benton County District Court ordered petitioner Briana Wakefield to pay $15 each month toward her outstanding legal financial obligations (LFOs). Wakefield was homeless, disabled, and indigent. Her only income was $710 in social security disability payments each month, and as a result, she struggled to meet her own basic needs. Wakefield and amici asked the Washington Supreme Court to reverse the district court's order and hold that the practice of strict LFO enforcement against homeless, disabled, and indigent people in Benton County violated state and federal statutes. Because the district court's order was contrary to both the law and the evidence in the record, the Supreme Court reversed: "Under state law, LFOs should be imposed only if an individual has a present or future ability to pay, and LFOs may be remitted when paying them would impose a manifest hardship on the person. . . . we order that her LFOs be remitted." View "City of Richland v. Wakefield" on Justia Law

Leslie Pendergrast and Robert Matichuk bought adjacent lots separated by a solid wooden fence. The fence enclosed a venerable cherry tree on Pendergrast's lot. For several years, Pendergrast and Matichuk maintained their lots as if the fence was the boundary line between them. However, as would later be determined, the fence stood several feet from the deed line and, according to the legal description, on Matichuk's land. The cherry tree stood on the disputed part of Pendergrast's lot. Instead of suggesting mediation or arbitration or filing a quiet title suit, and over Pendergrast's strenuous objection and a "tearful plea," Matichuk tore down the fence, built a new one on the deed line, and had the cherry tree cut down. Litigation ensued, and Pendergrast prevailed at summary judgment, at trial, and at the Court of Appeals. Matichuk appealed, claiming the disputed land was his and if not, the jury gave Pendergrast too much relief. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Pendergrast v. Matichuk" on Justia Law

After the Department of Labor and Industries (Department) learned it had been overpaying respondent Jose Birrueta's industrial insurance benefits for years, it issued two orders, one assessing an overpayment and another changing Birrueta's status from married to unmarried for compensation purposes. Because Birrueta was overpaid due solely to an innocent misrepresentation about his marital status made on his behalf, the Supreme Court held the Department's orders were timely and authorized. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the ruling of the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals upholding the Department's orders. View "Birrueta v. Dep't of Labor & Indus." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on the circumstances officers making a lawful arrest may seize a companion of the arrestee in the absence of reasonable suspicion to independently justify a "Terri" stop of the companion. The Court held that where officers have an objective rationale predicated on safety concerns to seize a companion to secure the scene of the arrest, article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution allowed for the seizure, so long as it remained reasonable in scope and duration. Based on this holding, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that evidence of a gun taken from respondent Cody Flores during his brief seizure should not have been suppressed. View "Washington v. Flores" on Justia Law

The child (K.M.M.) was in foster care since she was six and a half years old. She was removed from her biological parents' custody in 2009 because their serious substance abuse problems resulted in a neglectful home enviromnent. She was 11 years old at the time of trial in 2013. She had been in two foster care placements and was physically abused in one of those placements. K.M.M.'s biological father completed court-ordered services and remedied the deficiencies identified by the dependency court in prior proceedings. Nevertheless, the trial court terminated his parental rights based on its conclusion that he remained "unable to parent" due to the child's lack of attachment to him. This case required the Washington Supreme Court to determine whether parental rights could be terminated where the father was unable to parent his child due to a lack of attachment and continuing the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the child's emotional development and mental well-being. After review, the Supreme Court concluded there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that all necessary services have been provided to the father and that the provision of any additional services would have been futile. Furthermore, the record supported the trial court's finding of current parental unfitness based on the father's inability to parent the child. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision to uphold the termination order. View "In re Parental Rights to K.M.M." on Justia Law

When petitioner Mike Belenski requested certain records from Jefferson County (County), the County responded that it had "no responsive records." Over two years later, Belenski sued the County, asserting that this response violated the Public Records Act (PRA) because the County did in fact have such records and failed to make the proper disclosures. The Court of Appeals dismissed this claim as time barred under the two-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.130. At issue was which statute of limitations applied to Belenski' s PRA claim and whether the applicable statute rendered his claim time barred. The Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations in the PRA applied to Belenski' s claim and that this limitations period usually begins to run on an agency's final, definitive response to a records request. However, the Court remanded this case for the trial court to determine whether equitable tolling should have tolled the statute of limitations. View "Belenski v. Jefferson County" on Justia Law