Justia Washington Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved statutory interpretation of Washington's recreational land use statute, RCW 4.24.210. Plaintiff Steven Jewels sued the city of Bellingham for negligence following an injury he sustained when he was thrown from his bicycle after hitting an obstacle in a city-maintained park. Under the statute, landowners who open their property for recreational use free of charge are immune from liability when visitors injure themselves. This immunity did not apply, however, "for injuries sustained to users by reason of a known dangerous artificial latent condition for which warning signs have not been conspicuously posted." The trial court dismissed plaintiff's claims on summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After review, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erroneously interpreted the statute by concluding that the plaintiff had to show the city of Bellingham knew the condition was dangerous. However, the record supported the trial court's conclusion that the condition in this case was obvious (that is, not latent). Accordingly, the Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the city. View "Jewels v. City Of Bellingham" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on plaintiffs' claims under the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, and Planning Enabling Act (PEA), chapter 36.70 RCW, were properly dismissed as time barred. The trial court granted defendant-Skamania County's summary judgment motion on each of the plaintiffs' claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the GMA and PEA claims, reasoning that a genuine issue of fact remained as to: (1) whether Skamania County actually completed periodic review on August 2, 2005, which Skamania County argues triggered the clock for the GMA claim; and (2) the date on which the inconsistency, if any, arose between the unmapped classification and the conservancy designation, which would have triggered the clock for the PEA claim. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in part, holding that both claims were timely because: (1) inaction generally does not trigger the GMA 60-day appeal period; and (2) in this case, no actionable inconsistency existed between a 1986 ordinance and the "2007 Comprehensive Plan" (2007 Plan) until August 2012. Because further factual development was unnecessary to address the time bar issue, The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Save Our Scenic Area v. Skamania County" on Justia Law

This case arose from an interest arbitration award that retroactively increased employee health care premiums for a period when there was no enforceable collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Superior Court struck a portion of the award that granted the retroactive increase, ruling that the award: (1) was an unconstitutional taking in violation of the due process clause; (2) violated Washington's wage rebate act (WRA); and (3) was arbitrary and capricious. Kitsap County appealed this ruling and the Washington Supreme Court granted direct review. Finding the arbitration award proper, the Supreme Court reversed. View "Kitsap County Deputy Sheriffs' Guild v. Kitsap County" on Justia Law

In January 2008, S.J.C. pleaded guilty to two counts of fourth degree assault with sexual motivation for offenses he committed at age 13. At S.J.C.'s disposition hearing, the juvenile court ordered two years of community supervision and imposed other conditions such as regular school attendance, sexual deviancy treatment, and payment of a victim penalty assessment. After completing all of his conditions, in December 2011, S.J.C. moved to vacate his adjudication and seal his juvenile record under former RCW 13.50.050. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether article I, section 10 of the Washington Constitution required the court to apply the "Ishikawa" factors when a former juvenile offender has satisfied the statutory requirements of former RCW 13.50.050 (2011) to seal his or her juvenile court record. "Based on experience and logic," the Court affirmed the juvenile court's holding that it did not. Because it was undisputed that S.J.C. met all the statutory requirements, the Court affirmed the juvenile court's order sealing his juvenile court record. View "Washington v. S.J.C." on Justia Law

Leroy Jones was convicted of second degree assault for his role in a street fight involving five people. In a motion for a new trial made shortly after the verdict and before appeal, he asserted that his trial lawyer failed to interview and call certain eyewitnesses who were clearly identified in discovery that the State provided. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that it was clear that defense trial counsel's failure to interview three previously identified and easily accessible eyewitnesses before trial constituted deficient performance. "This deficiency also caused prejudice: it deprived Jones of the opportunity to develop a theory of the case that Jones was the victim rather than the aggressor, and it deprived him of neutral bystander eyewitness testimony in support of that theory." On this ground, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court. With regard to arguments made about the sentence he received, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in calculating defendant's sentence. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Washington v. Jones" on Justia Law

Frederick Hardtke was charged with two counts of second degree rape, one count of second degree assault, two counts of fourth degree assault, and malicious mischief. All were alleged to be acts of domestic violence that took place while Hardtke claimed he was blacked out from alcohol abuse. At his arraignment, the trial court imposed conditions of release, including that Hardtke not consume alcohol, pay a performance bond, and wear an electronic alcohol monitoring bracelet while awaiting trial. Hardtke objected multiple times to paying for the cost of the bracelet, but he wore the bracelet as a condition of his release. Hardtke eventually pleaded guilty to amended charges, and as part of his sentence he was ordered to reimburse the county for the cost of the alcohol monitoring. He appealed, challenging only the imposition of this cost. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that under the facts of this case, the costs for an electronic alcohol monitoring bracelet fit under the statutory meaning of "pretrial supervision." Because the trial court imposed nearly $4,000 in monitoring costs, the reversed and remanded for imposition of costs consistent with the statute. View "Washington v. Hardtke" on Justia Law

Petitioner Robert Barry appealed his conviction on two counts of child molestation, claiming that the trial court's instruction in response to a jury question violated his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. The jury asked the court whether it may consider "observations of the defendant's actions-demeanor during the court case" as "evidence." In response, the trial court instructed the jury that "[e]vidence includes what you witness in the courtroom." All parties agreed that the record contains no references whatsoever to Barry's in-court demeanor and so the Supreme Court had no way of determining what aspects of Barry's "demeanor" drew the jury's attention and whether the jury's observations were favorable or unfavorable to Barry. Therefore, after review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court's instruction did not amount to constitutional error. The Court instead applied the nonconstitutional error standard and affirmed. View "Washington v. Barry" on Justia Law

The State charged Christopher Maynard in juvenile court with six counts of malicious mischief. Less than one month later, he turned 18 years old. Maynard's counsel did not move for an order to extend the court's statutory jurisdiction before Maynard turned 18. As a result, the juvenile court ruled that it had lost jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice. The State then filed the case in superior court. Maynard moved to dismiss, arguing that preaccusatorial delay and ineffective assistance of counsel deprived him of the benefits of juvenile court jurisdiction, including the opportunity to accept a plea offer from the State. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that ineffective assistance of counsel, not preaccusatorial delay, caused the loss of jurisdiction. The court, however, determined that remand to adult trial court for a new trial was the proper remedy. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Maynard received ineffective assistance of counsel which then deprived him the benefit of the opportunity to accept a plea deal. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals' order with regard to remanding of the case to the adult trial court and instead, directed the State to reoffer the plea proposal of deferred disposition consistent with the Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 (JJA), chapter 13.40 RCW. View "Washington v. Maynard" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on a challenge to the constitutionality of the Washington Act Limiting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statute). Anti-SLAPP statutes punish those who file lawsuits (labeled strategic lawsuits against public participation or SLAPPs) that abuse the judicial process in order to silence an individual's free expression or petitioning activity. Plaintiffs and supporting amici curiae contended the anti-SLAPP statute's burden of proof, stay of discovery, and statutory penalties are unconstitutional on several grounds. They contended some or all of these provisions violated the right of trial by jury under article I, section 21 of the Washington Constitution; the Washington separation of powers doctrine under "Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, PS"(216 P.3d 374 (2009)); the Washington right of access to courts under Putman; the petition clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the vagueness doctrine under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Upon review, the Washington Supreme Court held that the anti-SLAPP statute violated the right of trial by jury, but did not resolve how these other constitutional limits may have applied to the anti-SLAPP statute's provisions: "The legislature may enact anti-SLAPP laws to prevent vexatious litigants from abusing the judicial process by filing frivolous lawsuits for improper purposes. But the constitutional conundrum that RCW 4.24.525 creates is that it seeks to protect one group of citizen's constitutional rights of expression and petition-by cutting off another group's constitutional rights of petition and jury trial. This the legislature cannot do." View "Davis v. Cox" on Justia Law

Linda Darkenwald worked as a dental hygienist in the office of Dr. Gordon Yamaguchi from 1985 to 2010. Initially, Darkenwald worked one day a week, but she increased this to two days a week and then four days a week. In 1998, she suffered a neck and back injury. Darkenwald received worker's compensation benefits after the Department of Labor and Industries found that she had a permanent impairment. Despite her injury, Darkenwald continued to work three to four days a week until 2006. From that point on, Darkenwald worked only on Mondays and Wednesdays, for a total of 14 to 17 hours per week. In 2010, Dr. Yamaguchi added another dentist to his practice, and asked Darkenwald to return to working three days a week. In the alternative, he offered her a position as an on-call or substitute hygienist. Darkenwald found neither of these alternatives acceptable and thus interpreted Dr. Yamaguchi's request as a termination of her employment. Darkenwald believed she had been fired, while Dr. Yamaguchi believed that she had quit. Darkenwald appealed the Washington Employment Security Department's denial of her claim for unemployment benefits. The issue her case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether a desire to work only part time constituted a good cause reason for leaving work, thus permitting an individual who left work for that reason to collect unemployment benefits. The Court found that Darkenwald relied on a statute that did not apply to her and would not give her good cause to leave work even if it were applicable. Furthermore, the Employment Security Act (Act), Title 50 RCW, listed good-cause reasons for voluntarily leaving work and states that this list is exclusive; a desire to perform only part-time wor View "Darkenwald v. Emp't Sec. Dep't" on Justia Law