The couples brought this action against the state and county, alleging that the flood damage was a result of the governments' improvements to a dike upriver. The couples presented evidence that the dike, which protects a state highway, irrigation projects, and private properties upriver, cut off the river from natural overflow channels. As a result, the mild 2002 flood event destroyed the couples' house and damaged their real property. The couples' complaint "contained claims for inverse condemnation, trespass, negligence, and wrongful injury or waste of property."

The trial court granted summary judgement for the governments based on the common enemy doctrine. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, "holding that the common enemy rule does not apply if a landowner obstructs a watercourse or natural drainway or prevents water from entering a flood channel." The Supreme Court granted review to consider "whether the owners' inverse condemnation claim may proceed ... in light of the common enemy rule."

The Court sustains the Court of Appeals and remands the case to the trial court.

Under the summary judgment standard, which requires us to view the facts and the inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (the owners), it is apparent that there is a factual issue about whether the water that caused damage to the owners' property was water that was diverted from the natural watercourse, and if so, whether liability for that damage flows from the County and State's construction of the dikes.

The Court also rejects the governments' claim that the owners have no recovery in inverse condemnation because the damage was not a necessary consequence of the dike improvements. There too, the Court finds an issue of material fact to be resolved at trial. Justice Alexander wrote for the majority and was joined by six other justices. The Chief Justice wrote a dissent, which Justice James Johnson also signed, arguing that the majority misconstrues earlier case law because it "misunderstands the nature of riparian rights...." (briefs, argument)

In re Marriage of Freeman, No. 82283-2. Rob and Robin Freemen were married when, in 1998, Robin moved for a protective order against Rob. The order was issued and subsequently made permanent, based on a physical confrontation between Rob and one of Robin's teenage children and Robin's fear of Rob's possession of firearms and his military training. The couple divorced and Rob left Washington state. In 2006, Rob moved to terminate the protective order, which was preventing him from receiving a security clearance and thus from pursuing certain job opportunities. The court commissioner denied Rob's motion, he appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the commissioner.

With an opinion by Justice Sanders and joined by five other justices, the Court affirms the court below and holds that the commissioner abused her discretion.

As much as it is possible to prove a negative, Rob has done so here. The likelihood that Rob will commit future acts of domestic violence on these facts is low. Hand in hand with that determination, the facts do not suggest Robin's fear of Rob is based on a reasonable threat of imminent harm.

Justice Fairhurst, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Stephens, dissents. (briefs, argument)

In 2007, the Washington State Gambling Commission informed the company that Betcha.com was engaged in illegal gambling. The company sued the state seeking a declaratory judgment that its social wagering site does not violate state law. Betcha.com lost at superior court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that because Betcha.com had not “gambled” because bettors understood that the losing bettor might not honor the debt.

The Supreme Court, with Justice Tom Sanders writing the unanimous opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals. The state Gambling Act prohibits bookmaking, which is defined as “accepting bets, upon the outcome of future contingent events, as a business or in which the bettor is charged a fee or ‘vigorish’ for the opportunity to place a bet.” RCW 9.46.0213. The court concluded that Betcha.com’s entire business model was based on charging fees from users for the opportunity to place a bet. Based on the conclusion that Betcha.com was engaged in prohibited bookmaking, the court declined to address whether the site’s users are actually engaged in gambling.

Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan County, No. 81257-8. This case is on appeal from Division Three Court of Appeals, and presents the Court with the question of whether a landowner may be compensated (via inverse condemnation) for damage caused to his property by a public project.

The damaged property was a log home built by the Fitzpatricks near the Methow River, which was washed away when the river abruptly changed course due to the construction of a dike upstream. The dike was a joint project of the state and county. The trial court granted summary judgment for the county, relying on the Common Enemy Doctrine (a rule allowing landowners to divert surface water, even to the detriment of neighoring landowners), but was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Freeman v. Freeman, No. 82283-2. What must be proved for a trial court to terminate a permanent protection order? Robin Freeman got a permanent protection order against Rob Freeman due to domestic violence. Rob, a member of the military, has since moved away. He lost a hand in Iraq, and this made it necessary to retrain and change careers within the military. However, he needed a security clearance and could not get one because of the permanent protection order.

Rob moved to terminate the protection order. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Robin is currently in reasonable fear of Rob. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Rob had not been in Washington or had contact with Robin since 1998, that he had violated neither the protection order nor any law, and that “due to time and distance, there is no evidence to support a current fear” of physical harm.

Internet Community & Entertainment Corp., d/b/a Betcha.com v. State, No. 82845-8. In 2007, Internet Community & Entertainment Corp. was informed by agents of the Washington State Gambling Commission that its website Betcha.com was engaged in illegal gambling. The company sued the state seeking a declaratory judgment that its social wagering site does not violate state law. Betcha.com lost at the trial level. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that because Betcha.com customers agreed in advance that participants were not required to pay their losses, Betcha.com was not engaged in “gambling” as defined in the Gambling Act.

State v. McCuistion, No. 81644-1. On appeal from Division Two Court of Appeals, this case originated in Pierce County Superior Court. It concerns whether a statute that prescribes the type of evidence sexually violent predators can use to show they qualify for a release hearing is constitutional.

McCuistion is a sexually violent predator who is committed indefinitely to a mental institution. State law permits him to have a release hearing (to determine if he is eligible for release) if he can clearly demonstrate (show prima facie evidence) that he is no longer a sexually violent predator. The types of evidence that can be used are limited, and the state is allowed to rely on annual psychiatric reviews. McCuistion appeals the evidence restrictions as unconstitutional.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice James Johnson and joined by seven other justices, holds that the plain language of the statute and the clear intent of the legislature is to criminalize all violations of a no-contact order. Justice Sanders dissents. (briefs, argument)

State v. Kintz, No. 81688-3. Clarence Kintz was convicted of two charges of misdemeanor stalking and appealed, challenging the trial court's interpretation of the statutory phrase "separate occasions" and the sufficiency of the evidence. In two incidents, one in December 2005 and the other in January 2006, Kintz frightened women by repeatedly and slowly driving past them and, in the latter case, offering the woman a ride and money. Both women called 911 and Kintz, who admitted some of the details of each incident, was eventually charged.

Kintz argues that "separate occasions" is ambiguous and that the Court should apply the rule of lenity to find that separate occasions must happen over a greater length of time than in these incidents. The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions and the Supreme Court sustains that decision, agreeing with the lower court that the plain meaning of "separate occasions" is "a distinct, individual, noncontinuous occurrence or incident." The Court also finds sufficient evidence to support the convictions. Justice Alexander authored the opinion for a majority of seven.

Justice Sanders dissents and would hold that the events leading to each of these stalking charges should be considered a single occasion, rather than "separate occasions," and thus do not meet the statutory definition of stalking. For related reasons, he would also find insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. Justice Chambers dissents separately in order to agree with Justice Sanders only as to the ambiguity in the term "separate occasions." (briefs, argument)

State v. Meneses, No. 83172-6. Andre Toi Meneses fathered a child by his then-girlfriend Jamila Willis. After they broke up, the child remained with Willis. Meneses began repeatedly calling Willis and leaving voice mail messages for her using "incredibly vile language, including racial slurs and descriptive obscenities," and threatening to kill Willis, her new boyfriend, and the new couple's infant. Willis eventually called the police, who recorded ten messages left by Meneses that became the basis for ten charges against him: four counts of felony telephone harassment, four counts of gross misdemeanor telephone harassment, and two counts of intimidating a witness. He was convicted by a jury on all counts.

The Court of Appeals sustained the convictions. The Supreme Court considered three issues raised by Meneses. First, the jury instruction on telephone harassment did not fail to specify that the criminal intent must have been formed before the call was placed. The instruction used the statutory language, and the Court has previously held that the meaning of the statute is clear on its face. Second, it did not violate double jeopardy for a count of telephone harassment and a count of intimidating a witness to arise from the same message because "each [conviction] required proof of a fact the other did not." Finally, because [n]o affirmative evidence supported the idea that Meneses committed witness tampering but not intimidating a witness," the trial court was not obligated to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense.

The Court, with an opinion by Justice Stephens, unanimously upholds the courts below. (briefs, argument)

In 2004, Proctor had his parcel surveyed because he was concerned that a different neighbor was encroaching on his land. Because of this survey, both Proctor and the Huntingtons came to realize that the Huntington improvements were on Proctor's side of their boundary line. After unsuccessful negotiations, Proctor sued to quiet title and to eject the Huntingtons. The Huntingtons counterclaimed for adverse possession and estoppel in pais. The trial court declined to decide for either party, instead crafting an equitable remedy that required Proctor to sell the one acre containing the Huntingtons' improvements to the Huntingtons for the fair market value of the land ($25,000). Both parties appealed.

The Court, with an opinion by Justice Stephens and joined by Justices Owens, Fairhurst, Chambers, and Charles Johnson, upholds the decision below.

The trial court's equitable approach in this case fits comfortably within the good-faith-mistake line of cases, including Arnold and Bufford, in which equity allows a court to apply a liability rule in lieu of rote application of a property rule. Because the trial court's chosen remedy was proper under Bufford and Arnold, the Court of Appeals was right to affirm it.
...
In upholding the equitable remedy imposed by the trial court, we recognize the evolution of property law in Washington away from rigid adherence to an injunction rule and toward a more reasoned, flexible approach.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sanders, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alexander and James Johnson, accuses the majority of overruling Arnold and violating protections of private property rights. The dissent looks to the Arnold decision's five-part test and would find that the Huntingtons could not satisfy two of those elements and thus were not entitled to their equitable relief. (briefs, argument)

Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., No. 81931-9. The Court addresses whether a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was time barred and whether a state agency is a "person" under RCW 4.24.510. While the Court unanimously determines that the 1983 claim was time barred, it fractures over the state law issue.

Michael Segaline is an electrician whose behavior shocked, offended, and possibly frightened staff at the L&I office where Segaline obtained electrical permits. L&I staff tried several times to reach an understanding with Segaline about his behavior, but finally told him that he was no longer allowed in the office. Segaline was subsequently arrested for criminal trespass when he refused to leave the office; the charge was later dropped. Segaline sued, alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, negligent supervision, and civil rights violations. He later moved to add the 1983 claim.

The trial court dismissed all Segaline's claims. It held the 1983 claim untimely filed and and determined that RCW 4.24.510, which protects "persons" who report information to government agencies, provided immunity to L&I. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

The lead opinion, by Justice Sanders and joined by three other justices, finds the meaning of the word "person" ambiguous in the statute. However, because the purpose of the statute is to protect freedom of speech, and because government agencies have no such protection,

[i]t makes little sense to interpret "person" here so that an immunity, which the legislature enacted to protect one's free speech rights, extends to a government agency that has no such rights to protect.

The Chief Justice, in a written concurrence, disagrees with the lead opinion's rationale. She would instead reach the same result by looking to the history of anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) statutes. Justice Charles Johnson, joined by three other justices, dissents and would hold that the immunity does extend to government agencies. (briefs, argument)

While awaiting review, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Gant, which limits searches incident to arrest. The State filed a supplemental brief conceding that Gant applies here, but arguing for the court to apply the "good faith" exception.

Today, in a unanimous opinion by the Chief Justice, the Court declines to apply the good faith exception. The Court puts itself in its place, reasoning that while reliance on statutes that are subsequently struck down may warrant a good faith exception, reliance on the Court's erstwhile case law does not. (briefs, argument)

State v. Turner, No. 81626-3 (consolidated with State v. Faagata, No. 82336-7). In these cases, each defendant was convicted of two charges stemming from a single event. The trial courts set aside the lesser conviction to avoid violating double jeopardy, but issued an order that if the remaining conviction was overturned on appeal, the lesser conviction could be reinstated. The trial courts were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

In a unanimous opinion by Justice James Johnson, the Court first reviews federal case law, which holds that double jeopardy does allow trial and conviction on lesser included offenses and "does not require permanent, unconditional vacation of the lesser of two convictions for the same criminal conduct...." However, the Court today reverses the Court of Appeals, and holds that the trial courts conditional vacation of the lesser offenses violated double jeopardy.

... a trial court must avoid (i) entering judgment on a defendant's lesser conviction and (ii) referencing that conviction when sentencing a defendant convicted of multiple crimes for the same criminal conduct. This is precisely what Turner and Faagata demanded, but did not receive, at trial and on appeal -- vacation of their lesser convictions without reference to any validity attributable to those convictions.

The Court notes that convictions for lesser included offenses that have been vacated can later be revived.

However, the lesser conviction, once vacated, and prior to reinstatement, is not "a valid conviction" and is not "entitled to some weight," contrary to the trial courts' rulings in these cases. ... In the future, the better practice will be for trial courts to refrain from any reference to the possible reinstatement of a vacated lesser conviction.

(briefs, argument)

Tobin v. Department of Labor and Industries, No. 81946-7. Jim Tobin was permanently disabled after being hit by a crane boom at work. He began collecting worker’s compensation benefits and sued the crane operator, settling for $1.4 million in damages, with about half of that amount being designated for pain and suffering. Under RCW 51.24.060, an injured worker is required to distribute a portion of a third-party recovery to the Department of Labor and Industries to reimburse the agency for worker’s compensation benefits. L&I informed Tobin that it would include the pain and suffering award he received in its calculation of what was owed the agency. Tobin argues the statute was designed to reimburse L&I for benefits paid, and L&I does not pay benefits for pain and suffering.

The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Barbara Madsen writing, agreed. The court held that chapter 51.24 RCW does not authorize L&I to seek reimbursement of damages awarded for pain and suffering. “[D]amages for ‘pain and suffering,’ like loss of consortium, constitute noneconomic damage that the workers’ compensation statutes do not compensate for. The Department did not pay out benefits for pain and suffering; therefore it cannot be ‘reimbursed’ from amounts recovered for pain and suffering. We hold that an award for pain and suffering may not be used by the Department in its distribution calculation.” Justice Mary Fairhurst dissented, arguing that the majority ignored the plain language of the recovery statute.

In Re Personal Restraint Petition of Cruze, No. 82567-0. Schawn James Cruze was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole under the “three strikes” provision of the Persistent Offender Accountability Act. Cruze filed a personal restraint petition arguing that the second conviction is not a most serious offense, or “strike.” However, Cruze filed his petition more than one year after his judgment and sentence became final, barring his claim unless the court could determine the sentencing was invalid on its face. The Supreme Court held that based on a plain reading of the statute, a deadly weapon verdict under the law includes a special verdict finding that a defendant was armed with a firearm. The court dismissed Cruze’s petition. Justice Susan Owens wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gerry Alexander wrote a dissent.

State v. Mitchell, No. 83169-6. This case hinges on the question of whether a child qualifies as a “dependent person” for purposes of the crime of criminal mistreatment. Marilea Mitchell and her boyfriend were charged with criminal mistreatment after starving the boyfriend’s four-year-old son almost to death. The statute refers to mistreatment of “a child or a dependent person,” and Mitchell was charged with mistreatment of a “dependent person.” Mitchell claims that the boy was a child, not a dependent person, and thus she was wrongly convicted. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with Mitchell’s argument and upheld her conviction. Justice Richard Sanders wrote the opinion of the court.

In Re the Honorable Judith Raub Eiler, No. 200,701-5. Judge Judith Eiler is a district court judge in King County. Based on a number of complaints, disciplinary proceedings were brought against her for treating litigants in an “angry, abusive, and condescending manner.” Eiler argues that there was not enough evidence, that the penalty is too high, and that punishing her for her demeanor violates her freedom of speech. Eiler appeals a disciplinary recommendation that she be suspended for 90 days without pay. The Supreme Court, with Justice Jim Johnson writing the lead opinion, found that Judge Eiler’s behavior only violated the judicial cannon requiring that a judge be “patient, dignified, and courteous.” The court reduced her suspension to a 5-day period.

Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6. Phillip and Monica Blackshear sued Centennial Contractors Enterprises for injuries caused when a steel beam was dropped on Phillip. After they won the suit, they filed a complaint for loss of consortium on behalf of their three children. The complaint stated that it would have been impractical to include their claims with their parents’ suit. George Kelly was appointed guardian ad litem for the children. At trial, the children’s case was dismissed because the court said their claims should have been joined with their parents’ claims. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed, holding that since the children did not yet have a guardian ad litem it would have been impossible to join them to the suit, and that it would have been impractical for them to bring their claims until the results of their father’s surgery were known. The Supreme Court, with Justice Gerry Alexander writing the lead opinion, agreed, holding that there were general issues of material fact that precluded a summary dismissal of the claim.

State v. Tibbles, No. 80308-1. Micah Tibbles appealed his misdemeanor convictions for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. During a traffic stop of Tibbles, Trooper Norman Larsen detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from Tibbles’ car. The trooper did not arrest Tibbles or seek a warrant, but conducted an warrantless search of the car, whereupon he discovered marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The district court, superior court, and Court of Appeals all upheld the search under the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement, which allows law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless searches when obtaining a warrant is not practical because the delay would compromise officer safety, facilitate escape, or allow destruction of evidence. Justice Debra Stephens, writing for the Supreme Court, said that the exigent circumstances exception would not apply in this case and that the search of Tibbles’ vehicle was unconstitutional under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.

Today, the Supreme Court overturns the lower court and holds that Gypsum does "use" the natural gas within Tacoma. The majority opinion finds that "the local BNG [brokered natural gas] tax holds a special position within the universe of Washington's use tax provisions." Rather than the usual statutory definition of "use," the Court applies the more ordinary definition to find that Tacoma can tax Gypsum's consumption of natural gas.

Justice Stephens wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Madsen and Justices Owens, Chambers, and Fairhurst. Justice Sanders dissents, joined by Justices Alexander, Charles Johnson, and James Johnson, arguing that the statutory definition is "plain on its face." (briefs, argument)

This case began mainly as a constitutional challenge by three death row inmates . . . to Washington’s three-drug lethal injection protocol for carrying out a sentence of death. The Thurston County Superior Court dismissed some claims on summary judgment and held a five-day bench trial in May 2009 to consider whether the three-drug protocol violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment” or Washington’s constitutional ban on “cruel punishment” in article I, section 14. The trial court upheld the lethal injection protocol, and this appeal followed.

Before this court heard oral argument, however, the Washington Department of Corrections (Department) abandoned the three-drug method of execution and adopted a new, one-drug protocol, effective March 8, 2010. The Department now moves to dismiss the Appellants’ constitutional challenge as moot, leaving for review only claims concerning the legislative delegation of authority to the Department to develop a lethal injection protocol, and the Department’s handling of the lethal injection substances under state and federal law governing controlled substances. In addition, the Department cross-appeals the trial court’s refusal to dismiss this case as time barred.

For the reasons that follow we affirm the trial court, both as to the statute of limitations question and its dismissal of the claims concerning legislative delegation and the state and federal controlled substances acts. With respect to the Appellants’ constitutional challenge and related claims, we grant the Department’s motion to dismiss these claims as moot.

The Supreme Court has lifted its stay of execution entered in Cal Coburn Brown's case, which was entered the day before he was scheduled to be executed last year. We expect the Attorney General's Office will announce its plan to seek a rescheduling of the execution shortly.

The case is Brown, Gentry and Stenson v. Vail, No. 83474-1.

For more information on this case see this Associated Press article. Click here for more background on capital punishment in Washington state.

Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2 (briefs and argument). The Supreme Court held that under the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA), chapter 59.20 RCW, a landlord and tenant can lawfully agree to a 25-year lease that will convert to a one-year lease if the tenant assigns it. Mobile home tenants and association brought an action against the mobile home park, alleging that leases violated the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The trial court ruled for the park. Writing for the majority, Justice Richard Sanders said that the MHLTA preserves the right of a landlord and tenant to negotiate and agree to the term of a rental agreement and thus the provision does not violate the MHLTA. Justice Gerry Alexander wrote a dissenting opinion.

Sound Infiniti v. Snyder, No. 81923-8 (briefs and argument). Richard Snyder, David Hannah, and Afshin Pisheyar were joint owners (as shareholders) of Sound Infiniti and Infiniti of Tacoma. They had a falling out, and Pisheyar sued the others individually and on behalf of the corporation (a derivative suit). Snyder and Hannah set up a reverse stock split to take away all of Pisheyar's stocks. The trial court allowed the split to proceed after an initial injunction, and dismissed Pisheyar's derivative suit because he was no longer a shareholder. The Court of Appeals confirmed the ruling, and found that the sole remedy for all Pisheyar's claims is the appraisal process, in which he can obtain fair market value for the shares that were taken away. The Supreme Court agreed, with Justice Susan Owens writing the majority opinion. The court held: (1) that the appraisal proceeding in RCW 23B.13.020 is a dissenting shareholder’s exclusive remedy unless a corporate action is procedurally defective or fraudulent and (2) that a divested shareholder does not have standing in a derivative suit. Justice Sanders wrote a dissenting opinion.

State v. Harvill, No. 82358-8 (briefs and argument). At trial, Joshua Harvill claimed that he sold the drugs because he was afraid of the informer. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the defense of duress because there was no evidence that the informer had threatened Harvill. The trial court did instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment, and the jury rejected the defense. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on the duress defense. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. Justice Debra Stephens wrote the opinion.

State v. Nonog, No. 82094-5 (briefs and argument). Cipriano Bahit Nonog was convicted in King County Superior Court of felony violation of a domestic violence protection order, residential burglary-domestic violence, and interfering with domestic violence reporting. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) upheld the conviction, and ruled that the information charging the defendant sufficiently defined the charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision below, with Justice Debra Stephens writing the unanimous opinion.

Broom v. Morgan Stanley, No. 82311-1 (briefs and argument). Michael, Kevin, and Andrea Broom sued Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. for mismanaging an investment account. Their claims were rejected by an arbitration panel because they were barred by the statute of limitations. The Brooms appealed to King County Superior Court, and the court held that statute of limitations in Washington do not apply to claims in arbitration. The court vacated the arbitration panel’s decision as an error of law. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed. Morgan Stanley argues both that statutes of limitations do apply to arbitration, and that courts cannot vacate arbitration decisions because of “errors of law.”

Little Mtn. Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mtn. Estates MHC LLC, No. 82574-2 (briefs and argument). Mobile home tenants and association brought an action against the mobile home park, alleging that leases violated the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act (MHLTA) and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The trial court ruled for the park. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) affirmed the ruling in part, and reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Sound Infiniti v. Snyder, No. 81923-8 (briefs and argument). This case concerns what remedies are available to a minority shareholder whose shares are taken away, and whether that shareholder can bring a derivative suit against the corporation after he has lost his shareholder status. Richard Snyder, David Hannah, and Afshin Pisheyar were joint owners (as shareholders) of Sound Infiniti and Infiniti of Tacoma. They had a falling out, and Pisheyar sued the others individually and on behalf of the corporation (a derivative suit). Snyder and Hannah set up a reverse stock split to take away all of Pisheyar's stocks. The trial court allowed the split to proceed after an initial injunction, and dismissed Pisheyar's derivative suit because he was no longer a shareholder. The Court of Appeals confirmed the ruling, and found that the sole remedy for all Pisheyar's claims is the appraisal process, in which he can obtain fair market value for the shares that were taken away. The Association of Washington Businesses filed an amicus brief supporting Snyder.

State v. Harvill, No. 82358-8 (briefs and argument). At trial, Joshua Harvill claimed that he sold the drugs because he was afraid of the informer. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the defense of duress because there was no evidence that the informer had threatened Harvill. The trial court did instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment, and the jury rejected the defense. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) noted that if the elements of duress had been proved, then the contested elements of entrapment would also have been proved. Since the jury rejected entrapment, it would also have rejected duress even had the instruction been given. Thus, even if the lack of a duress instruction was in error, it did not prejudice Harvill.

State v. Nonog, No. 82094-5 (briefs and argument). Cipriano Bahit Nonog was convicted in King County Superior Court of felony violation of a domestic violence protection order, residential burglary-domestic violence, and interfering with domestic violence reporting. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) upheld the conviction, and ruled that the information charging the defendant sufficiently defined the charges.

State v. Brown, No. 84083-1.

In a per curiam opinion the Supreme Court today overturns the Court of Appeals. "Because the information did not adequately apprise Brown of the elements of the crime, the charge must be dismissed without prejudice."

State v. Willingham, No. 84036-9. Jesse Willingham was charged with indecent liberties with a child. The crime has a three-year statute of limitations. Prosecutors argued and the Court of Appeals agreed that the statute of limitations was tolled for a two-week period when Willingham was in Utah for job training. Today, in another per curiam reversal of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court holds that the temporary absence from Washington for job training did not toll the statute of limitations.

State v. Brown, No. 84083-1. Whether evidence was sufficient to support Maurice Terrell Brown's conviction for second degree escape where he was being held in a county jail, was granted a 72-hour furlough for drug treatment, and failed to return within the 72-hour limitation of the furlough.

State v. Willingham, No. 84036-9. Whether defendant Jesse Willingham's absence from charging state for two weeks tolled the three year statute of limitations in prosecution for indecent liberties with a child, when evidence indicated that defendant was in another state for a period of two weeks.

McGuire v. Bates, No. 82659-5 (briefs and argument) – Read those settlement agreements carefully, folks. The Supreme Court rules that a settlement for “all claims” precluded the prevailing party from recovering attorneys fees in addition to the settlement payment. Julianne McGuire hired Robert Bates to remodel her kitchen. After it was done, she claimed that he had done the work improperly and sued him. The case went to mandatory arbitration, but before the arbitration the parties settled “all claims” for $2,180. RCW 18.27.040 allows the prevailing party in a suit by a homeowner against a contractor to recover attorney fees. McGuire moved for attorney fees based on this statute. The arbitrator denied the motion because the parties had agreed to settle “all claims.” However, the courts held that attorney fees are a cost, not a claim, and were thus not included in the settlement agreement. Bates appealed, and also argues that McGuire is not a “prevailing party” because the case was settled. The Court of Appeals held the attorneys fees could be added to the settlement total, but the Supreme Court reversed, with Justice Gerry Alexander writing the unanimous opinion. 

State v. Afana, No. 82600-5 (briefs and argument) – The Court rules that a police officer’s search of a vehicle after the arrest of the passenger was unconstitutional. Mark Afana was sitting in his legally-parked car with a friend, Jennifer Bergeron, watching a DVD on a portable player. A police officer approached them, asked what they were doing, and requested ID. The officer discovered a warrant against Bergeron and arrested her. In a search incident to the arrest the officer found drugs in the car. At Afana’s trial, the court held that the request for ID was an illegal stop and suppressed the drug evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the request for ID was mere social contact. The Supreme Court, with Justice Alexander writing, held the warrantless search of the car was unconstitutional under Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution: “a warrantless search of an automobile is permissible under the search incident to arrest exception only when that search is necessary to preserve officer safety or prevent destruction or concealment of evidence of the crime of arrest.”

State v. Bashaw, No. 81633-6 (briefs and argument) – Bertha Bashaw was convicted of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance. Because the offenses occurred within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop, her maximum sentence was doubled by statute. Bashaw argues that distance measurements of a mechanical device were improperly admitted because the State failed to demonstrate that the device functioned reliably. She also contends that the jury instructions incorrectly required unanimity for a finding that her actions did not take place within 1,000 feet of the school bus route stop. The Supreme Court, with Justice Susan Owens writing, agreed, and held that the jury instruction error justified reversing the sentence enhancements. The case was remanded to trial court for further proceedings. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen dissented.

Waples v. Yi, No. 82142-9 (briefs and argument) (consolidated with Cunningham v. Nicol, No. 82973-0) – The Supreme Court invalidated the requirement that plaintiffs give a 90-day notice before suing health care providers for malpractice. Nancy Waples brought a negligence action against her dentist, Peter Yi, alleging the dentist's employee injured her by negligently injecting anesthetic. The Pierce County Superior Court, and the Court of Appeals (Div. II) affirmed the dismissal, ruling the patient failed to comply with a statutory notice requirement, which required a plaintiff to provide health care providers with 90 days’ notice of the plaintiff’s intention to file a medical malpractice suit. Waples argues the notice requirement is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the notice requirement of RCW 7.70.100(1) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers. Justice Charles Johnson wrote the majority opinion, holding that court rules govern the commencement of a lawsuit. “If a statute and a court rule cannot be harmonized, the court rule will generally prevail in procedural matters and the statute in substantive matters.” Justice James Johnson dissented, arguing that the 90-day rule did not modify court rules, but merely provided parties with an incentive to settle cases rather than going to court.

The Court today first addresses the standard necessary to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. While federal courts have recently made it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive motions to dismiss, the State Supreme Court refuses to follow that course here. The majority notes that "[t]he appropriate forum for revising the Washington rules is the rule-making process."

The Court holds that the McCurry's state contract law claims, including the unjust enrichment claim, are not preempted by federal lending laws or regulations.

State contract law does not purport to impose requirements on loan-related fees; state contract law instead requires parties to adhere to the terms of their contracts. Forcing Chevy Chase to adhere to the terms of its contract only incidentally affects the loan-related fees....

The Court further holds that the Consumer Protection Act claim survives to the extent that it relates to misrepresentation of the contract terms, but that it is preempted if the allegation is that the Act "regulates how or when fax or notary fees (loan-related fees) can be charged...."

The majority opinion is written by Justice Sanders and joined by five other justices. It strongly takes to task the dissent, authored by Justice James Johnson and joined by Justices Charles Johnson and Susan Owens, alleging that "the dissent's novel interpretation of preemption would prevent Washington consumers from enforcing contracts against federal savings associations."  (briefs and argument)

After this sale was complete, South Tacoma Way, LLC (South Tacoma) entered negotiations to purchase one of the abutting properties, and also expressed interest in the alley, only to find out DOT had sold it to Sustainable. South Tacoma purchased the abutting property and then filed this lawsuit objecting to the Sustainable purchase. The trial court ruled in favor of DOT and Sustainable, concluding that although DOT did not comply with the applicable statute, the sale was not ultra vires (i.e., outside DOT’s powers) and Sustainable was a bona fide purchaser. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in South Tacoma’s favor.

Today the Supreme Court, with Justice Charles Johnson writing the 8-vote majority, reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the sale to Sustainable. The court said that while ultra vires acts are performed with no legal authority and are void on the basis that no power to act existed, there is a difference where an act is committed without an agency’s power, though without strict procedural or statutory compliance. The court determined that DOT had authority to sell the property and had mistakenly followed the wrong statutory process. Additionally, the court said that Sustainable was a bona fide purchaser and that this doctrine would apply. In other words, the law provides that a good faith purchaser for value who is without actual or constructive notice of another’s interest in purchased real property has superior interest in that property.

Justice Richard Sanders dissented, arguing that DOT was without authority to sell the property without giving proper statutory notice to all abutting owners, and that to ignore this requirement eviscerates the statute. “This interpretation erases the notice requirement from the statute. From now on DOT can simply sell to whomever it chooses without notice to other abutting landowners, in violation of RCW 47.12.063(2)(g). What other statutory limitations can the State ignore?”

McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, No. 81896-7 (briefs and argument). Originating in King County Superior Court, this case concerns whether bank fees charged in relation to a Washington home loan are governed by the federal Home Owners Loan Act.

The McCurrys had a mortgage through Chevy Chase, which they fully paid off. When they did so, the bank charged them a $20 fax fee and a $2 notary fee before signing the house over to them. The McCurrys paid the fees and then filed a class action suit under state law against the bank for illegal fees. The trial court dismissed it because the state law is preempted by the federal Home Owners Loan Act. The McCurrys argue that the facts of the case don't fall under the federal law.

South Tacoma Way v. State, No. 82212-3 (briefs and argument).The State Department of Transportation (DOT) sold an alley to Sustainable Urban Development #1, LLC (Sustainable). DOT failed to notify other adjacent property owners as required by law. South Tacoma Way, LLC, which also owns property next to the alley, sued DOT and Sustainable to void the contract as an ultra vires act outside DOT's authority. The trial court held that DOT was authorized to sell the property and that the failure to give notice was merely a procedural error. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed, holding that DOT is only authorized to sell property after giving notice.

The Court upholds the Board on most points and imposes the suspension. Justice Fairhurst writes for the majority and is joined by five other justices. Justice Sanders, joined by Justices Chambers and James Johnson, dissents and would give greater weight to the mitigating factors and reduce the suspension. (briefs and argument)

Kustura v. Department of Labor, No. 81478-3. Several persons with "limited English proficiency" appealed determinations by the Department of Labor and Industries, and included in their claims a demand that the Department provide them with interpreters for all interactions with the Department. RCW 2.43.040 grants persons with limited English proficiency the right to translation services paid for by taxpayers where the government has instituted a legal proceeding.

Here, the Court upholds the Court of Appeals, which determined that the Department did not initiate the proceedings. It further casts doubt on whether the Department's proceedings here qualify as legal proceedings under the RCW. Justice James Johnson authored the Court's opinion, in which six other justices concurred. Justice Chambers, joined by Justice Sanders, dissents. (briefs and argument)

State v. Grenning, No. 81449-0. Neil Grenning was charged with 72 sex crimes, including 20 counts of possession of child pornography related to pictures found on his computer hard drives. The trial judge, at the request of the prosecutors, issued a restrictive order preventing copies of the hard drives from being turned over to the defense, though the defense was provided with access to them. Potential defense expert witnesses apparently refused to investigate the hard drives without the ability to take them to their own computer laboratories, and the defense did not present an expert witness regarding the hard drives at trial.

Grenning was convicted on all but one of the charges, including all of the instances of child pornography, and sentenced to 117 years in prison. He appealed, challenging the limitations placed on the hard drive evidence. The Court of Appeals agreed with Grenning and ordered a new trial for the child pornography charges; the state appealed.

The Court here upholds the Court of Appeals. In an opinion by Justice Chambers and joined by five other justices, the Court finds that its decision in State v. Boyd, "which held that the defense was entitled to a mirror image copy of the defendant's computer hard drives," controls the outcome here. Justice Madsen, joined by Justices Alexander and James Johnson, dissent and "disagree with the majority's recitation of the facts, its legal analysis, and its result." (briefs and argument)