New cases granted review
The Supreme Court issued orders granting review in several cases on April 28, including a public records case, and a petition for restoration of the right to possess a firearm. Orders here.
- O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9
- Hudson v. Hapner, No. 82409-6
- Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2
- Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6
UPDATE: Case details after the jump.
O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9 (whether email metadata is a public record under the Public Records Act). The issue is whether an email's "metadata" (e.g.,the To, From, Date, & Subject fields, the sender's IP address, and other data embedded in the email) attached to a public official's email are subject to disclosure. During a city council meeting, Deputy Mayor Maggie Fimia mentioned she had received an email from two citizens regarding a zoning issue. One of the persons identified, Beth O’Neill, was in the audience, but had not sent the email. She requested to see a copy. Fimia forwarded the email from her personal computer to a public account, and the original metadata was stripped off in the process. O'Neill was given a copy of the forwarded email, but requested to see the original, which had since been deleted from Fimia's computer. The Court of Appeals held that metadata is a “public record” within the Public Records Act, and is subject to disclosure.
Hudson v. Hapner, No. 82409-6 (withdrawal of voluntary request for trial). In 1998, Clifford Hapner drove his vehicle into the rear of Lea Hudson's vehicle. Hudson sued Hapner, his wife, and his employer, Matthew Norton Corporation, and the case went to mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Hudson $14,538 in damages, and Hapner requested a trial. In 2003, a jury awarded Hudson $292,298. Hapner appealed, arguing successfully that the trial court improperly excluded his expert's testimony. After remand, Hapner filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal of his request for trial, obviously recognizing the utility of paying the damages awarded in arbitration. The trial court denied his withdrawal of request for trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals said Hapner had the right to voluntarily withdraw his trial request without court permission; the Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MARs) did not preclude Hapner from voluntarily withdrawing trial request after trial judgment was reversed on appeal; and Hapner did not “waive” his right to voluntarily withdraw trial request by proceeding to trial.
Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2 (restoration of right to possess firearm).Following an automobile accident that occurred in 1993, James Rivard was charged with vehicular homicide, and pleaded guilty in June 1997. The judgment and sentence were entered according to the vehicular homicide statute in effect in 1993. The law in 1993 prohibited Rivard from possessing a firearm while he was under DOC supervision. After serving his sentence and paying his court-imposed financial obligations, Rivard petitioned the court to restore his right to possess firearms in September 2006. The trial court granted his petition, and the State appealed. The State argued the legislature reclassified vehicular homicide from a class B felony to a class A felony in 1996, and the law prohibits those convicted of a class A felony from ever possessing a firearm. Before the Court of Appeals, the State argued that the law in effect on the date Rivard was originally sentenced is irrelevant. The Court of Appeals concluded the State was correct, and reversed the trial court's order restoring his right to possess firearms.
Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6 (dismissal of loss of parental consortium claims). In 2003, Phillip Blackshear was injured in a work accident. Phillip and his wife sued the construction contractor for negligence, but did not assert a claim of loss of parental consortium on behalf of their three children. A jury returned a verdict for the Blackshears, finding Centennial negligent. Subsequently, the parents filed a petition to obtain the appointment of a guardian ad litem to pursue the matter on behalf of the children based on the loss of parental consortium. A court commissioner appointed George Kelley as GAL. The trial court dismissed the children's case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the issue of whether children's loss of parental consortium claim was required to be dismissed did not become moot after parent's underlying negligence claim had been adjudged.
