The Supreme Court granted several petitions for review during its March 2 conference.
The Supreme Court granted several petitions for review during its February 9 conference.
The Supreme Court accepted several new cases for review during its January 5 conference.
The Supreme Court accepted several new cases for review during its December 1 conference.
The Supreme Court agreed to review several new cases, reviewing issues such as the suppression of breath test results and whether a person has a constitutional right to honk her horn at a neighbor.
The Supreme Court has agreed to review several new cases.
(Additional cases have been accepted and will be added to this list when the information becomes available.)
Continue Reading...
The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review a Court of Appeals ruling in a case that tests whether the Washington State Gambling Act (chapter 9.46 RCW) applies to an Internet gambling site. The case is Internet Community & Entertainment Corp., d/b/a Betcha.com v. State.
In 2007, the company was informed by agents of the Washington State Gambling Commission that Betcha.com was engaged in illegal professional 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. The state appealed, and the case now goes to the Supreme Court.
The court agreed to hear several other cases which we'll post shortly.
The Supreme Court of Washington has agreed to review several new cases after its July 7 conference.
Cases of note include Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Attorney General (whether a federal law preempts the state Public Records Act), State v. Bainard (whether a defendant who shot his parents and allegedly burned down the home can be charged with first-degree arson), and State v. Hirschfelder (whether the law criminalizes sexual intercourse between a teacher and an 18-year-old student).
Case details after the jump.
Continue Reading...The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review several new cases.
Case details after the jump:
Continue Reading...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.
UPDATE: Case details after the jump.
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court has posted a list of the petitions for review to be considered on April 28, 2009. We will post a summary of each case granted review.
Two cases I'll be watching with particular interest involve claims based on the state's Public Records Act. O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9, deals with whether an email's "metadata" (the To, From, Date, & Subject fields) attached to a public official's email are subject to disclosure. Also, West v. Port of Olympia, No. 82461-4, asks whether a port must disclose a lease agreement executed with a private company, or does the state's "deliberative process" exemption apply. (Note: my organization filed an amicus brief in support of West, et al., at the Court of Appeals stage.)
A coalition of Washington school districts say the state is shortchanging them on special education funding, and is asking the Supreme Court to review a Court of Appeals ruling in the state's favor. The coalition claims Washington's special education funding does not satisfy the state's constitutional obligation to “make ample provision for the education of all children.” Wash. Const. art. IX, § 1.
Todd Sorensen at the Northwest Education Law Blog has details about the appellate ruling.
In order to overturn the special education funding legislation, the Alliance needed to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the legislation is “facially” unconstitutional—meaning absolutely incapable of being applied in a constitutional fashion—or that the legislation is unconstitutional “as applied”—meaning that in practice the legislature failed to adequately fund special education to the extent required by the Washington Constitution. ... The Court of Appeals concluded: “[A]s our Supreme Court has often held, ‘it is not this court’s role to micromanage education in Washington.’” The court then stated that the legislature, not the courts, has “the general authority to select the means of discharging [the] duty to fund education.”
The case is School Districts' Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Educ. v. State.
In January the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims, in which Justice Richard Sanders chastized King County for its failure to comply with the Public Records Act, and provided guidelines for assessing the severity of penalties when a violation occurs.
Last month the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that Justice Sanders had his own separate, long-running public records case. Justice Sanders says he cleared his involvement in Yousoufian with the court's ethics expert, and that recusal was not required in this situation.
King County lawyers are now asking the Supreme Court to vacate the Yousoufian ruling. In a motion filed this morning, King County alleges that Justice Sanders “stood to personally gain” from that decision, and asks the court to replace Justice Sanders with a temporary justice to rehear the case.
We hope Yousoufian does not become an unfortunate casualty. The ruling has been hailed by open government experts for providing a much-needed analytical framework for reviewing government responses to citizen records requests. Mr. Yousoufian has been battling King County since the late 1990's, with two Supreme Court rulings to his name already. (Note: We filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Yousoufian at an earlier stage of the case.)
What would happen if the court grants King County’s motion for a rehearing?
Hard to say. Sanders wrote the majority, which was signed by Justices Charles Johnson, James Johnson, and Fairhurst. Justice Chambers concurred with the majority’s analytical guidelines, but disagreed over whether the trial court judges abused their discretion as related to the penalty awarded Mr. Yousoufian. In addition to signing the majority, Justice James Johnson filed a concurrence, which Justice Sanders signed. Chief Justice Alexander separately concurred with the analytical guidelines, but dissented to the extent that Sanders ordered the trial court to impose penalty “at the high end of the penalty range.” Finally, Justices Owens and Madsen dissented, along with Justice Pro Tem Karen Seinfeld, protesting the “cumbersome multifactor test.” Justice Stephens did not participate.
Given the kaleidoscope of opinions, it’s difficult to predict an outcome if the Supreme Court granted a rehearing. Replacing Sanders, and assuming all other members ruled similarly, there are still five votes to uphold Yousoufian's analytical framework. And as I've noted elsewhere, Justice Stephens, who did not participate, seems to line up on the side of open government.
The Supreme Court issued orders granting review in several cases on March 31. Orders here.
Case details after the jump.
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court will consider several petitions for review on March 31. One or more rulings may be issued April 2. Last week the court concluded its Winter Term; oral arguments will resume in May.
In 2004, King County adopted a "Clearing and Grading Critical Areas Ordinance" pursuant to Washington's Grown Management Act. The Ordinance would prevent the use of up to 65% of individual parcels of rural-zoned property. Five King County landowners and the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) sued the County and lost at the trial court.
On appeal, Division I Judge Ronald Cox reversed the trial court and held that King County's ordinance "imposes clearing requirements that are an in kind indirect tax, fee, or charge on development," falling afoul of RCW 82.02.020 and violating the proportionality requirement of Dolan v. City of Tigard.
Amidst yesterday's orders, the Supreme Court denied King County's appeal. The Seattle Times headline: "Big court victory for rural property owners."
The Supreme Court granted review in seven cases yesterday. Orders here.
Details after the jump.
Continue Reading...The Supreme Court has published a list of petitions for review to be considered on March 3. We'll post the cases that are granted review.
Enter keywords:
Podcasts
