Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, Envision Spokane gathered enough signatures to place a local initiative on the ballot that would establish a "Community Bill of Rights." Petitioners filed this declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the Envision Initiative. The petitioners included Spokane County, individual residents of Spokane (including two city council members acting in their individual capacities), for-profit corporations and companies in Spokane (including Pearson Packaging Systems and the utility company A vista Corporation), and nonprofit associations (including the Spokane Association of Realtors, the Spokane Building Owners and Managers Association, the Spokane Home Builders Association, and local chambers of commerce). The trial judge ruled that (1) petitioners had standing to challenge the initiative and (2) the initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative power. She therefore instructed that it be struck from the ballot. Envision Spokane appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that petitioners lacked standing and ordered the initiative be put on the next available ballot. The first issue before the Supreme Court in this case was who has standing to bring those types of challenges. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals created new limits on who can bring such challenges, but the Supreme Court reversed and adhered to existing standards because they adequately ensured that only those affected by an ordinance may challenge it. Applying those existing standards, the Supreme Court found that petitioners in this case had standing to bring this challenge. The second issue in this case was the substance of the petitioners' challenge: whether the initiative's subject matter fell within the scope of authority granted to local residents. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that this local initiative exceeds the scope of local initiative power and should not have been put on the ballot. View "Spokane Entrepreneurial Ctr. v. Spokane Moves to Amend the Constitution" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review concerned the authority of an Idaho court to impact property in Washington and whether the Washington Court had to respect that court's orders. This case arose through OneWest Bank FSB's attempted foreclosure of Washington property based on a reverse mortgage that an Idaho court ordered through Bill McKee's conservatorship proceedings. McKee's daughter, Maureen Erickson, challenged the foreclosure, claiming the reverse mortgage was void because she was the actual owner of the property and the Idaho court had no jurisdiction to affect Washington property. The trial court granted summary judgment to OneWest, allowing it to proceed with foreclosure, but the Court of Appeals reversed and granted summary judgment for Erickson. The Washington Supreme Court had to decide whether the lower courts were required to give full faith and credit to the Idaho court orders. After review, the Supreme Court held that full faith and credit was due and OneWest was entitled to foreclose its reverse mortgage on the Spokane property. View "OneWest Bank FSB v. Erickson" on Justia Law

In 1988, when petitioner John Anderson was 17 years old, he pled guilty in juvenile court to statutory rape in the first degree. The victim was two and a half years old. Anderson was sentenced to 100 weeks in a juvenile rehabilitation facility. When Anderson's juvenile sentence was about to expire in 1990, the State petitioned to have him involuntarily committed and he was transferred to Western State Hospital (WSH) for an evaluation. Before the evaluation period ended, Anderson voluntarily sought civil commitment. In February 2000, Anderson announced his intention to end his voluntary commitment and the State petitioned to have him involuntarily committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) pursuant to chapter 71.09 RCW. Anderson was transferred to the Special Commitment Center (SCC) during the pendency of the State's petition in March 2001. In 2004, after a bench trial, the trial court found Anderson was an SVP. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to appoint Anderson's requested expert witness. The Supreme Court agreed. On remand, Anderson moved to dismiss, contending that his juvenile adjudication was not a conviction, and thus he could not be subject to an SVP petition under RCW 71.09.030(1)(e). He also contended that his sexual contacts with other patients at WSH were not recent overt acts as a matter of law. The trial court denied Anderson's motion to dismiss, and Anderson was retried by a jury. The jury concluded that Anderson was an SVP, and the trial court entered an order committing him to the SCC. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision. Anderson petitioned the Supreme Court to ask that his civil commitment under chapter 71.09 RCW be reversed. Specifically, he asked whether juvenile adjudication for a sexually violent offense was a predicate "convict[ion]" under RCW 71.09.030(1)(e). The Supreme Court held that it was, and affirmed his civil commitment. View "In re Det. of Anderson" on Justia Law

In 2008, petitioner Guy Wuthrich was riding a motorcycle on Avondale Road Northeast in King County, approaching an intersection with Northeast 159th Street. Drivers on 159th Street are controlled by a stop sign at the intersection; drivers on A von dale Road were not. Defendant Christa Gilland was driving a car on 159th Street. When she reached the intersection with Avondale Road, she stopped to wait for passing traffic but did not see Wuthrich approaching from the left. She turned left onto Avondale Road and collided with Wuthrich's motorcycle, seriously injuring him. Wuthrich filed a complaint against both Gilland and the County, alleging that the County was liable for his injuries because overgrown blackberry bushes obstructed Gilland's view of traffic at the intersection. The trial court dismissed the action against the County on summary judgment. The Supreme Court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the County had a duty to keep the roadway at issue here in a reasonable safe condition. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wuthrich v. King County" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a will contest and whether the will proponents presented sufficient evidence to rebut a presumption of undue influence. The trial court invalidated the will, finding that it was the product of undue influence. The trial court's factual findings were not challenged on appeal, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to make findings of direct evidence to support its conclusion of undue influence, relying solely on the presumption of undue influence to invalidate the will. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the proper inquiry here was whether the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact supported its conclusions of law. The Court of Appeals erred by reweighing evidence that sufficiently supported the trial court's conclusions. The Court reinstated the trial court's judgment invalidating the will as a product of undue influence. View "In re Estate of Barnes" on Justia Law

Two Washington residents got into a single-car accident that occurred in Idaho. The issue as presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether Washington or Idaho law applied: plaintiff filed this suit in Washington more than two years after the accident. If Idaho law applied, the plaintiff's claim was time barred by Idaho's two-year statute of limitations; if Washington law applied, the plaintiff's claim was permitted under Washington's three-year statute of limitations. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that Washington's law, including its statute of limitations, applied here. View "Woodward v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In 2012, plaintiff Heidi Kroeber was shot outside the Bad Monkey Bar in Kent, Washington by Matthew Atkinson, who was driving an uninsured truck belonging to a friend at the time he opened fire. Plaintiff and her boyfriend had antagonized Atkinson earlier that evening. After pleading guilty to the crime of "Drive-By Shooting," Atkinson claimed that he had not intended to injure anyone and later claimed that he did not know that he was shooting where people were standing. There were factual disputes concerning whether Atkinson's truck was stopped or in motion at the time that he opened fire, and whether he accelerated rapidly away from the scene after the shooting. Plaintiff filed a claim with defendant, GEICO Insurance Company, to recover damages under the UIM coverage provision of her own automobile insurance policy. Under the relevant parts of this policy, GEICO was liable for "damages an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle due to: 1. bodily injury sustained by that insured and caused by an accident; and 2. the liability of the owner or operator for these damages must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the underinsured motor vehicle." GEICO denied plaintiffs claim, asserting that her injuries did not arise out of the use of Atkinson's truck. Plaintiff sued GEICO, claiming that she was entitled to UIM coverage. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and that court certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court: (1) whether an injury to an insured pedestrian "arose out of" the intentional firing of a gun from an uninsured pickup truck; and (2) whether it is material if the shooter intended to harm anyone when firing the gun. The Washington Supreme Court answered the first question by holding that an injury "arises out of' vehicle use so long as some causal connection is present between a condition of, an attachment to, or some aspect of a vehicle and the resulting injury. "The converse is also true-·-an injury does not 'arise out of' vehicle use under circumstances where no such causal connection exists, making the vehicle the mere situs of the accident." The Court answered the second question in the negative. View "Kroeber v. Geico Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Andrea Rich of driving under the influence (DUI) and reckless endangerment. The evidence showed that Rich was speeding in traffic while highly intoxicated and with a young child in the front passenger seat. But the officer who arrested Rich followed her car because he believed that the car was stolen. Rich's manner of driving posed no observable danger. The Court of Appeals reversed the reckless endangerment conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Rich's driving created an actual, substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. The Court of Appeals ruled, on an issue of first impression, that proof of a DUI does not necessarily establish proof of reckless endangerment. The Supreme Court agreed that proof of DUI alone did not necessarily establish proof of reckless endangerment. However, the Court found that a reasonable juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Rich created a substantial risk of death or injury to her passenger, knew of that risk and disregarded it. The Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed on the reckless endangerment conviction. View "Washington v. Rich" on Justia Law

Seattle Police Officer Michael Conners stopped a vehicle driven by Wayne Evans for speeding in the Central District of Seattle. As Conners approached Evans's vehicle, he observed furtive movements from Evans and his passenger, and smelled marijuana. Conners directed Evans to exit the vehicle and asked him whether he had any weapons. Evans responded that there was a knife in his pocket. Conners instructed Evans not to reach for the knife; Conners then reached into Evans's front right pocket, retrieved a fixed-blade knife with a black handle, and placed Evans under arrest for possession of a fixed-blade knife. The city of Seattle charged Evans with the unlawful use of weapons. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and Evans's conviction was affirmed by the superior court and the Court of Appeals. On appeal of that conviction, Evans argued that Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 12A.14.0801 violated his right to bear arms under article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the ordinance does not permit him to carry a small, fixed-blade "paring" knife for the purpose of self-defense. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals but on different grounds: the Court held that Evans' paring knife was not an arm entitled to constitutional protection, and that Evans therefore could not establish that SMC 12A.14.080 was unconstitutionally applied to him. View "City of Seattle v. Evans" on Justia Law

Petitioner Zachary Larson was convicted under the statute for committing retail theft while in possession of wire cutters. He used the wire cutters to remove a security tag from a pair of Nike shoes worth $32 at a Marshall's store in Bellingham. The State elected to charge Larson under RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b) rather than the ordinary theft statute. Larson argued on appeal that as a matter of law, wire cutters do not constitute a device "designed to overcome security systems" as required by the statute and, therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for retail theft with extenuating circumstances. After review, the Washington Supreme Court held that the plain language of RCW 9A.56.360(1)(b) established the legislature's intent to target organized retail theft only where particular types of tools were utilized. "An item, article, implement, or device is 'designed to overcome security systems' if it is created-whether by the manufacturer or the defendant-with the specific purpose of disabling or evading security systems." The Court held that ordinary, unmodified wire cutters did not fall within this definition, so the evidence was insufficient to support petitioner Larson's conviction for retail theft with extenuating circumstances. View "Washington v. Larson" on Justia Law