State v. Chambers, No. 86474-8, James Chambers was the defendant in multiple criminal cases and entered in to a single plea agreement for the multiple charges. He filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court granted Chambers’ motion. The Court of Appeals (Div. II) held that the plea agreement was indivisible and that the defendant was only permitted to withdraw his plea as to individual charges.

National Surety Corporation v. Immunex Corporation, No. 86535-3, Immunex Corporation was sued along with several other drug manufacturers for using inflated average wholesale prices for reimbursements. National Surety Corporation, Immunex’s liability insurer, brought action against Immunex to determine whether or not they owed duty to defend Immunex in the cases. The lower court ruled they did not owe the duty to defend. Instead, National Surety Corporation must compensate insured for defense costs until the time of the court’s ruling on the duty to defend. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) held that National Surety Corporation was required to reimburse defense costs and was liable for pre-tender defense costs if prejudice was not shown.

Wash. State Nurses Ass’n v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., No. 86563-9, The Washington State Nurses Association and a member sued their employer, Sacred Heart Medical Center, for violation of the Minimum Wage Act (MWA). The MWA requires two 10-minute rest breaks during an 8-hour work week. The nurses entered into a collective bargaining agreement that spells out conditions of employment including two 15-minute rest breaks during an 8-hour work week. When a Sacred Heart nurse misses a rest break in an 8-hour period, the nurse receives 15 additional minutes of pay at the regular rate. The Nurses Association sued Sacred Heart, claiming that they are entitled to overtime pay, not regular pay, for a 10-minute (state-mandated) portion of the missed rest breaks.

The superior court ruled in favor of the nurses, ordering that when a state-mandated rest break is missed it constitutes additional “hours worked.” The court agreed that missed breaks should be compensated at time and one half for the first 10 minutes missed but still compensated at straight time for the remaining 5 minutes of break time provided by the collective bargaining act. The Court of Appeals (Div. III) ruled that the regular pay of missed 15-minute rest breaks by Sacred Heart was appropriate and reversed the decision of the trial court.

• In re Marriage of Katare, No. 85591-9
• Estate of Bunch, No. 85679-6
• Bus. Servs. of Am. II, Inc. v. WaferTech, LLC, No. 85654-1
• Robb v. City of Seattle, No. 85658-3

The Court of Appeals (Div. I) held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting profile evidence and that Lynette’s “expert” testimony was inadmissible. The travel restrictions were upheld based on evidence of Brajesh’s conduct, behavior, anger towards Lynnette and his willingness to use to children to punish her.

Estate of Bunch, No. 85679-6. Steven Bunch filed a wrongful death lawsuit after his 15-year-old daughter, Ashlie, committed suicide in 2008 while in the care of McGraw residential center. Bunch claimed a permanent loss of parent-child consortium under RCW 4.24.010 , which allows the mother, father, or both parents to sue for wrongful death if they have regularly contributed to the support of the minor child. Up until her death, Bunch had been providing for all of Ashlie’s care. Ashlie’s mother, Amy Kozel moved to be included in the action. The trial court denied her motion, as she had not provided regular financial, emotional, or psychological support to Ashlie after 2003 when she sent the girl to live with her father. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the mother’s motion, and there was no error in deciding motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Bus. Servs. of Am. II, Inc. v. WaferTech, LLC, No. 85654-1. Business Services of America II Inc. filed a lawsuit against Wafertech LLC. The Superior Court dismissed the claim and Business Services appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to trial court. Four years later the case was noted for trial, and the judge dismissed the case for want of prosecution. Business Services appealed the dismissal. The Court of Appeals (Div. II) held that the trial court could not dismiss for want of prosecution after case had been noted for trial.

Robb v. City of Seattle, No. 85658-3. Samson Berhe was committed to Western State hospital after shooting and killing Michael Robb. In the week leading up to Michael Robb’s murder, Seattle police had been called at least six times about Berhe who was taken in for psychiatric holds, reported to have firearms under his bed, was reported by his father for fighting and having a shot gun, was implicated by Bellevue police in a vehicle theft and had been discovered drinking beer in an empty house. Just two hours before the murder, officers made contact with Berhe and his friend. It was noted that yellow shot gun shells were lying on the sidewalk near the two.
 

• State v. Pannell, No. 85437-8
• State v. Siers, No. 85469-6
• State v. Deer, No. 85511-1
• Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., No. 85535-8

State v. Siers, No. 85469-6. Brian Siers got into a bar fight with Jesse Hoover for reasons neither one can remember. At one point in the fight Siers produced a knife. Daniel Whiten, who had stepped in to try and stop the fight, grabbed Siers to keep him from harming a woman who was also trying to stop the fight. Both Whiten and Hoover were stabbed and Siers was charged with two counts of assault in the second degree with a deadly weapon enhancement.

The State included in the jury instructions a “good Samaritan” enhancement for the attack on Whiten. Siers objected to the enhancement as the State had not alleged it in the information. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the second degree assault conviction involving the good Samaritan aggravator.

State v. Deer, No. 85511-1. Lindy Deer was convicted of three counts of child rape in the third degree. At trial, Deer testified that at least one of the incidents took place while she was asleep. After the State had rested its case, the trial court allowed them the opportunity to amend the language of the charges. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to be dismissed without prejudice while also holding the State’s jury instruction requiring Deer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child had sexual intercourse with her while she slept was deficient.

Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., No. 85535-8. Leo Macias was exposed to asbestos dust while cleaning respirators from 1978 to 2004 at the Seattle shipyard. After being diagnosed with mesothelioma he filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, who moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied summary judgment and the respirator manufacturer appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the manufacturer owed no duty to warn Macias of the danger of asbestos in another company’s product, and ordered the trial court to grant summary judgment in the manufacturer’s favor.

• Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., No. 85350-9
• Gendler v. Batiste, No. 85408-4
• Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., No. 85366-5

Gendler v. Batiste, No. 85408-4. Michael Gendler suffered a severe bicycle accident when crossing Montlake Bridge in Seattle. His bike tire became wedged in the bridge grating, tossing him from the bike. Gendler was rendered a quadriplegic, unable to live independently, and unable to work full time in his law practice. Gender suspected his accident was not uncommon and requested records of other bicycle accidents from the Washington State Patrol. The WSP refused to provide the records unless Gendler certified that he would not use them against State. Gendler was not willing to waive his right to litigation and sued WSP for violations of the Public Records Act. The trial court ruled for Gendler, ordering disclosure of the historical bicycle records. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the State Patrol had a statutory obligation to collect traffic collision reports and had to disclose those reports.

Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., No. 85366-5. Bruce Cedell filed a claim for accidental fire damage to his home under a Farmers' policy. A year after the fire, Farmers had still not paid Cedell's claim so he sued. Cedell moved to compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories, and Farmers sought to prevent disclosure of privileged communications. The trial court ordered Farmers to provide Cedell with the documents. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that an insurer has a right to attorney-client privilege in a first-party-insurer claim.

• Schneider v. Almgren, No. 85112-3
• State v. Jasper, No. 85227-8
• State v. Clifton, No. 82622-6
• State v. Brown, No. 83211-1
• Albice v. Dickinson, No. 85260-0
• Elcon Constr., Inc. v. Eastern Wash. Univ., No. 83690-6
• State v. Cook, No. 84133-1

State v. Jasper, No. 85227-8. Douglas Jasper was convicted of felony hit-and-run and third-degree driving while license suspended or revoked. The Court of Appeals threw out his driving-while-suspended conviction, holding that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the admission of an affidavit containing testimonial statements absent an opportunity for the defendant to cross-examine the witness—in this case an affidavit establishing the status of Jasper’s drivers license. The court upheld the hit-and-run, however, ruling that the trial court committed harmless error when it failed to notify parties of contents of the deliberating jury’s questions and failed to provide parties with opportunity to suggest the appropriate response.

State v. Clifton, No. 82622-6. Jason Van Antwerp and Justin Clifton were convicted of first degree robbery for their roles in a robbery. On appeal, Clifton contended some of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and the instructions to the jury on whether a particular finding required unanimity. The Supreme Court review only on the issue of unanimity and remanded it for reconsideration in light of State v. Bashaw, 169 Wn.2d 133 (2010).

State v. Brown, No. 83211-1. Maurice T. Brown appealed a 24-month sentence enhancement for delivering a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school bus stop. He argued on appeal that the jury was improperly instructed to unanimously answer “no” on the verdict form. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but the Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the unanimity instruction in light of State v. Bashaw.

Albice v. Dickinson, No. 85260-0. Christa Albice and Karen and Bart appealed a trial court’s refusal to set aside a nonjudicial deed of trust foreclosure sale of their property. They argued that (1) the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale was not a bona fide purchaser; (2) even if he was, the trustee’s deed failed to report procedural facts that would statutorily protect a buyer; (3) the sale was void for taking place beyond the statutorily limited timeframe; (4) the Teccas timely tendered funds sufficient to cure the loan default and require the trustee to discontinue the sale; and (5) the trustee lacked authority to conduct the sale because it had no corporate officer residing in Washington at the time of the sale. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the sale did not comply with statutory requirements, that the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser for value, that the trustee’s deed failed to state facts that would protect a buyer, that the sale price was inadequate, and that the sale was surrounded by other unfair circumstances.

Elcon Constr., Inc. v. Eastern Wash. Univ., No. 83690-6. Elcon Construction appealed the trial court’s dismissals of its tort claims against Eastern Washington University arising from the parties’ well drilling contract, and the court’s refusal to grant pre-award interest on Elcon’s arbitration award against EWU. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that hold that the economic loss rule precludes Elcon’s tort claims arising from the contract.

State v. Cook, No. 84133-1. John Cook was convicted of residential burglary, violating post-conviction protection orders, and bail jumping. On appeal, he argues that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to reach a unanimous answer to special verdict questions. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of State v. Bashaw.

• In Re Personal Restraint Petition of James Eastmond, No. 81939-4
• Rondi Bennett, et al., v. Smith Bundy Berman Britton, PS, et al., 84903-0
• In Re the Dependency of Jayden Hyde, No. 84916-1
• David Koenig v. Thurston County & the Thurston County Prosecuting Attorney, No. 84940-4
• Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4, No. 84975-7
• Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, No. 85200-6

Bennett v. Smith Bundy Berman Britton, 84903-0. Rondi Bennett and her father, Gerald Horrobin, filed accounting malpractice lawsuit against their former accounting firm, Smith Bunday Berman Britton, P.S., accussing Smith Bundy of Rondi Bennett’s former husband in defrauding companies the Bennetts and Horrobin once owned together.

Following settlement of the action, Ed Clark, an accounting expert who was not a party to the action, filed a motion to intervene and to unseal documents. The superior court denied the motion to unseal records. The Court of Appeals held that the public did not have a constitutional right of access to sealed documents that had been filed with the court in anticipation of a decision, where the court did not review the documents or rely on them to make the anticipated decision.

In Re the Dependency of Hyde, No. 84916-1. Whether for purposes of standing to appeal a father was “aggrieved” by an order dismissing his son’s dependency as to the child’s mother.

Koenig v. Thurston County, No. 84940-4. David Koenig filed a public disclosure complaint against county and county prosecuting attorney seeking victim impact statement and Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA) evaluation from criminal voyeurism prosecution. The trial court ruled that the victim impact statement and SSOSA were exempt from disclosure under Public Records Act (PRA). The Court of Appeals held that victim impact statements were exempt from disclosure but that SSOSA evaluation were not exempt.

Mercer Island Citizens for Fair Process v. Tent City 4, No. 84975-7. A citizens group sued against the City of Mercer Island, Mercer Island United Methodist Church, and others, challenging a temporary use agreement (TUA) approved by the city council that permitted the church to host a homeless tent city. The superior court denied a request for a temporary restraining order and granted summary judgment to city. The Court of Appeals held that a TUA was a “land use decision” under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), and that the group’s failure to challenge the TUA decision with a timely LUPA petition barred all of the group’s claims.

Clausen v. Icicle Seafoods, No. 85200-6 (transferred from the Court of Appeals in December pursuant to a ruling from the Supreme Court Commissioner). Whether under federal maritime law the trial court erroneously awarded attorney fees and excessive punitive damages to an injured seaman for his employer’s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.

• McCleary, et al. v. State, No. 84362-7
• Five Corners Family Farmers, et al. v. State, et al., No. 84632-4
• State v. Sublett, et al., No. 84856-4
• State v. Saenz, No. 84949-8
• Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, et al., No. 84998-6
• Weismann v. Safeco Insurance Co., No. 85012-7
• State v. Rodriguez, No. 83275-7

Five Corners Family Farmers, et al. v. State, et al., No. 84632-4. An Easterday Ranches feedlot near Eltopia, Washington, planned to use a well for drinking water for up to 30,000 cattle. A state law exempts livestock watering from the permitting process, and an opinion issued by the Attorney General’s Office stated the law does not limit use for watering animals. Neighbors of the feedlot, concerned about limited water resources, challenged the opinion along with conservation groups Earthjustice and the Sierra Club. A Franklin County Superior Court judge dismissed the case, stating the plaintiffs’ injury was too speculative and the relevant statute was unambiguous.

State v. Sublett, et al., No. 84856-4. Co-defendants Michael Sublett and Christopher Olsen were found guilty of first degree murder. They appealed, arguing the trial court violated their public trial rights and their right to be present by holding an in-chambers conference to address a question submitted by the jury. They also argued the trial court violated due process by refusing to answer the jury’s question. Sublett also argued the trial court erred by refusing to sever the co-defendants’ trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

State v. Saenz, No. 84949-8. Jorge Ariel Saenz was convicted of offenses including two counts of first degree assault with a deadly weapon. He appealed, and state cross-appealed the court’s failure to sentence Saenz as a persistent offender. The Court of Appeals held evidence of Saenz’s gang affiliation and witness intimidation were admissible, and that a prior conviction was a “strike” under the three strikes law.

Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church, et al., No. 84998-6. Angela Erdman, a former church employee, brought action against the church and its pastor, alleging wrongful termination, retaliation, and sexual and religious discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment for the church and pastor. The Court of Appeals held that the church was not liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress; that claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress against pastor and for negligent retention and supervision were not barred; that claims of hostile work environment and retaliation based on gender were not barred by First Amendment; and that claims for harassment and retaliation were barred by Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).

Weismann v. Safeco Insurance Co., No. 85012-7. Darlene Kangas struck Karen Weismann with her car. Weismann brought action against Kangas’ insurer for injuries she sustained. The trial court granted Weismann summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed. This case is consolidated with Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 84686-3.

State v. Abdulle, No. 84660-0. Yussuf Hussein Abdulle was charged with two counts of forgery. The State presented testimony of one of two officers present when Abdulle supposedly waived his right to counsel and made incriminating statements. The Court of Appeals held that when a defendant denies waiving the right to counsel and the State fails, without explanation, to call other officers who were present to corroborate the interrogating officer’s testimony, the defendant’s statements are inadmissible.

State v. Rodriguez, No. 83275-7. Granted only on unit of prosecution issue & remanded to Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010).

• Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8
• Anthis v. Copland, No. 85230-8
• Dependency of Peter Tsimbalyuk, et al., No. 84458-5
• Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, No. 84686-3
• State v. Budik, No. 84714-2
• Personal Restraint Petition of Teddy Glenn Talley, No. 83284-6 
• Personal Restraint Petition of Ernest A. Carter, No. 84606-5
• Personal Restraint Petition of Edward Michael Glasmann, No. 84475-5

Anthis v. Copland, No. 85230-8. Walter Copland shot and killed his friend Harvey Anthis. Copland was convicted of first degree manslaughter. Anthis’ widow, Bonnie Anthis, brought a wrongful death action against Copland. The trial court awarded $950,000 in damages. On appeal Copland argued that the trial court erroneously awarded damages for Anthis' loss of the enjoyment of life. The Court of Appeals found no support for this and affirmed the judgment.

Dependency of Peter Tsimbalyuk, et al., No. 84458-5. The Department of Social and Health Services appeals the superior court's orders dismissing its petitions to terminate Peter Tsimbalyuk's parental rights to his three children. Appellants argued the court erred in applying RCW 13.34.180(1)(f), the sixth element of the parental rights termination statute (whether continuation of Tsimbalyuk's relationship with the children diminished their prospects for integration into a permanent home). The Court of Appeals agreed the court had committed obvious error, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Matsyuk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, No. 84686-3. Olga Matsyuk was injured while a passenger in a car. She recovered from the at-fault driver’s insurance company, State Farm. She then sought a pro rata share of her attorney fees from State Farm. The Court of Appeals held Matsyuk was not entitled to a contribution of attorney fees from the insurer.

State v. Budik, No. 84714-2. Kenneth Budik was convicted of first degree rendering criminal assistance. Titus Davis shot into the passenger side of a truck and killed the driver, Adama Walton, and injured Budik. Subsequently, Budik refused to tell police the names of the assailants, telling police he did not know the names, though later he reported at least one name to other individuals. The Court of Appeals concluded sufficient evidence existed to support a conviction for first degree rendering criminal assistance.

• Edmonson v. Popchoi, No. 84695-2
• State v. Jim, No. 84716-9
• Knight v. City of Yelm, No. 84831-9
• State v. Brown, 84836-0
• State v. Riley, No. 84678-2
• State v. Thompson, No. 84739-8
• City of Bothell v. Barnhart, No. 84907-2

The trial court ruled that Kiss breached these covenants of the statutory warranty deed by conditioning acceptance of a defense tender upon his grantee’s acknowledgement of his absolute right to settle the Edmonsons’ adverse claim and pay his grantee damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Kiss breached his duty to defend, and that Popchoi did not waive his rights under warranty.

State v. Jim, No. 84716-9. Lester R. Jim, an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation, was fishing at the Maryhill Treaty Fishing Access Site (MTFAS). While the site is not on an Indian reservation, it was acquired for the Indian’s use in lieu of treaty fishing grounds that had been submerged or destroyed by dam construction on the Columbia River. Mr. Jim was charged by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for second degree unlawful use of a net and retaining undersized sturgeon. The Court of Appeals held that State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Jim for fishing violations at the MTFAS despite the fact the site was not not on Yakama reservation land.

Knight v. City of Yelm, No. 84831-9. Mystic teacher and author JZ Knight is opposing several proposals to subdivide property into single-family residential lots in Yelm. The hearing examiner granted preliminary subdivision approvals in five decisions. Knight later filed a Land Use Petition Act challenge, and the trial court ruled in her favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Knight could not show she would personally be harmed by land use decision, thus requiring dismissal of her LUPA petition. “[I]f we were to find that Knight had standing, we would first be required to presuppose a series of future events that may not ultimately occur.” The court affirmed the challenged preliminary subdivision approvals, reversed the trial court, and dismissed Knight’s LUPA petition for lack of standing.

State v. Brown, 84836-0. Consolidated with State v. Kosewicz, No. 83682-5.

State v. Riley, No. 84678-2. Granted and remanded to the Court of Appeals in light of State v. Afana, 169 Wn.2d 169 (2010)

State v. Thompson, No. 84739-8. Bobby Thompson was convicted of first degree rape. He filed a post-trial motion for DNA testing of evidence. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Thompson was entitled to an order of indigency, and he was entitled to post-conviction DNA testing of evidence collected during rape investigation. The Supreme Court agreed to review only the issue of consideration of evidence not presented at trial when deciding motion for post-conviction DNA testing.

City of Bothell v. Barnhart, No. 84907-2. James Barnhart was convicted by jury in the Bothell Municipal Court of stalking. The Superior Court affirmed the conviction. Bothell is one of a few cities in the state that is located in two counties—both King and Snohomish Counties. Barnhart was charged in Snohomish but two jurors from King County sat on the panel. The Court of Appeals held that the Washington Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 22) requires that a defendant be tried by a jury of the county where alleged offense was committed. The court held that Barnhart’s jury trial right was violated, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.

• State v. Oppelt, No. 84573-5. Whether the state’s six year delay in bringing child molestation charges violated due process.
• Williams v. Athletic Field, Inc., No. 84555-7. Whether a trial court properly released a mechanics’ lien.
• Michael Grassmueck, Inc. v. McShane, No. 84568-9. Whether the trial court erred in vacating a default judgment.
• State v. Griffin, No. 84554-9. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony during sentencing proceedings in a conviction of residential burglary.
• State v. Franklin, No. 84545-0. Granted only on issue of term of community custody.

The State filed charges against seven alleged accomplices of Maurice Clemmons. Several of these defendants sought to prohibit the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office from producing any documents in response to the Times’ request. Two judges, Judge Susan Serko and Judge Bryan Chushcoff (who is running as a candidate for the Supreme Court against Justice Richard Sanders), entered orders sealing documents related to the criminal trials, including exhibits that were entered in open court. Judge Serko said the rights of the accused would be compromised by the release of the records.

The Seattle Times filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the judges to provide public access to police incident reports and other public records. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.

The case is Seattle Times v. The Honorable Susan K. Serko and The Honorable Bryan E. Chushcoff, No. 84691-0. A copy of the petition is here, and a copy of the judges’ response is here.

• State v. Morales, No. 84197-7
• State v. Beadle, No. 84204-3
• State v. Russell, No. 84307-4
• Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 84369-4
• Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. 84500-0
• Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 84296-5
• State v. R.P.H., No. 82557-2
• Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, Elyea & Jefferson County, No. 84246-9
• Mitch Dowler, et al. v. Clover Park School District No. 400, No. 84048-2

State v. Beadle, No. 84204-3. Steven Beadle was convicted on two counts of first degree child molestation. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the child’s hearsay statements and unfairly prejudicial testimony regarding the child’s behavior. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed his conviction.

State v. Russell, No. 84307-4. Arthur C. Russell was convicted for first degree child rape-domestic violence. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed the trial court, holding that the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of other alleged sexual abuse of the victim without giving the jury a required limiting instruction.

Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 84369-4. In this land use case, Douglas County approved a recreational overlay district to accommodate an extension of a bicycle/pedestrian trail, which borders agricultural land used for orchards. Area orchardists objected to the overlay district. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) held that the recreational overlay district was not an amendment to the county’s comprehensive plan and that a challenge to the comprehensive plan came too late. The court also rejected the argument that the recreational overlay district ran afoul of state statutes that encourage the preservation of agricultural land. The court dismissed the challenges of the orchardists.

Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. 84500-0. David Moeller had an automobile insurance policy with Farmers Insurance Company. After the vehicle was damaged in a collision, Farmers paid the full cost of repairs, less a deductible. Moeller claimed that the policy also covered loss for the diminished value of his vehicle, but Farmers disagreed. Moeller filed a class action lawsuit, alleging breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The trial court certified a class but granted Farmers’ motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed and reversed in part, holding that diminished value was loss under the insurance policy.

Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 84296-5. A developer appealed the denial by the city of rezone requests and subdivision applications. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed, holding that Phoenix's proposed rezones implement the Woodinville comprehensive plan and current zoning code and comply with the city code's general rezone criteria.

State v. R.P.H., No. 82557-2. A former juvenile offender petitioned for the restoration of his firearms rights. The superior court denied his petition and the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed.

Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, Elyea & Jefferson County, No. 84246-9. A neighboring landowner brought a land use action challenging a conditional use permit by the county authorizing a animal boarding facility to remodel and expand facility. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the county’s decision granting a conditional use permit was a final determination, and that the challenging landowner’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the 21-day filing deadline to appeal the decision to grant the permit;

Several petitions for review were granted and immediately remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.

Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010):

• State v. Aarhus, No. 84140-3
• State v. Thomas, No. 83678-7

Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wn.2d 889 (2010):

• State v. Huynh, No. 82807-5
• State v. Jones, No. 79689-1
• State v. Graham, No. 80088-0
• State v. Latourette, No. 81607-7

• Bank of America v. Owens, No. 84044-0
• State v. Gresham, No. 84148-9
• State v. Scherner, No. 84150-1
• In re Det. of Danforth, No. 84152-7
• Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, No. 84108-0
• Kaltreider v. Lake Chelan Cmty. Hosp., No. 84144-6
• Federal Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, No. 84243-4
• State v. Grogan, No. 82609-9

State v. Gresham, No. 84148-9 and State v. Scherner, No. 84150-1 are consolidated to address whether RCW 10.58.090. Generally speaking, the state’s rules of evidence prohibit the use of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts as proof of a defendant’s propensity to commit similar actions. Nevertheless, RCW 10.58.090 permits the admission of evidence of a defendant’s past sex offenses in a criminal sex offense action. Two criminal defendants have challenged the law as unconstitutional.

In re Det. of Danforth, No. 84152-7. The state filed petition seeking to civilly commit sex offender as a sexually violent predator. The offender argued his plea to law enforcement officials seeking help from reoffending did not constitute a recent overt act warranting commitment. The superior court denied the offender’s motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed the civil commitment.

Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, No. 84108-0. A nonprofit group request public records from Spokane County. The trial judge denied the group’s request for discovery and granted summary judgment to the county. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the county had violated the Public Records Act by failing to conduct a reasonably adequate search for responsive records, but that the organization’s request for discovery went far beyond the issue of whether a reasonably adequate search for documents had taken place.

Kaltreider v. Lake Chelan Cmty. Hosp., No. 84144-6. Elizabeth Kaltreider was a voluntary resident at Lake Chelan Community Hospital for inpatient treatment of alcohol dependency. During her stay she engaged in sexual acts with a nurse. Kaltreider sued the hospital and the nurse, claiming in part that the hospital breached its duty to protect her from sexual misconduct. The trial court ruled against her. The Court of Appeals held that Kaltreider was not a vulnerable adult and thus the hospital did not have a duty to protect her against the actions of a third party, and that the nurse’s actions with the patient were not foreseeable, and thus the hospital did not have a duty to protect the patient against actions of a third party.

Federal Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, No. 84243-4. David Vinson, a teacher at Federal Way High School, was accused of verbally harassing a student. Vinson later admitted lying during the human resources investigation. The school district terminated Vinson, citing his behavior and the dishonesty during the course of the investigation. A hearing officer ruled in Vinson’s favor, and a superior court affirmed the decision, ordering the district to pay Vinson’s attorneys fees. The Court of Appeals held the teacher's conduct in lying during an official school district investigation of professional misconduct was sufficient cause for termination.

State v. Grogan, No. 82609-9. Review granted and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Dow, No. 81243-8.
 

• Cary v. Mason County, No. 83937-9
• In re Marriage of Farmer, No. 83960-3
• State v. Hartzell & Tieskotter, No. 84017-2
• State v. Kosewicz, No. 83682-5
• State v. Perez-Valdez, No. 84003-2
• Washington Imaging Services, LLC v. Wash. State Dept of Rev., No. 84101-2.
• Harris v. Hon. Edsonya Charles, No. 83867-4.
• Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 83883-6
• State v. Posey, No. 82957-8
• State v. Mullen, No. 83981-6
• Personal Restraint Petition of Chad Alan Pierce, No. 83731-7
• Personal Restraint Petition of Eric Sheridan Flint, No. 83815-1 

In re Marriage of Farmer, No. 83960-3. Daniel Farmer and Teresa Farmer entered into a dissolution agreement under which Teresa would receive one half of some community stock. After entering the agreement, but before the final dissolution decree, Daniel sold all of the stock options and fraudulently concealed the fact that he had done so until after entry of the decree. The trial court vacated the stock option provisions of the decree and awarded Teresa damages based an expert’s calculation of damages based on the value of the stock options. Daniel challenges the trial court’s determination of damages.

State v. Hartzell & Tieskotter, No. 84017-2. The Supreme Court granted review on the firearm enhancement issue and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals in light of State v. Williams-Walker (2010).

State v. Kosewicz, No. 83682-5. Theodore Kosewicz was convicted for aggravated first degree murder, first degree kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit first degree kidnapping. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) reversed the conviction for first degree kidnapping but affirmed the other convictions. The Supreme Court agreed only to hear the review the aggravating factor issue.

State v. Perez-Valdez, No. 84003-2. Alberto Perez-Valdez was convicted of second and third degree rape of a child. He appealed, arguing the trial court made several evidentiary errors, including allowing an investigator to testify that the alleged child victims were telling the truth.

Washington Imaging Services, LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Rev., No. 84101-2. Washington Imaging Services (WIS) collects funds from its patients and insurance companies and forwards the funds to Overlake Imaging Associates for radiological analysis. WIS did not pay business and operating taxes on these funds, concluding that the funds qualified under a “pass through” exemption that allows a business to exclude amounts it receives as an agent for a client from its taxable gross income. After an audit the Department of Revenue concluded WIS owed B & O tax for payments forwarded to Overlake Imaging. The trial court ruled for the Department of Revenue, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed the ruling, holding that the pass through payments were not gross income and WIS should not pay B&O taxes on these amounts.

Harris v. Hon. Edsonya Charles, No. 83867-4. Joshua Harris was sentenced to 90 days in jail after pleading guilty to driving while license suspended in the third degree. He filed a writ of habeas corpus in King County Superior Court asking that the municipal court be ordered to give him credit for his time on electronic home monitoring. The Superior Court granted the writ. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed.

Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 83883-6. The Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeals to review the constitutionality of House Bill 1653, enacted by the Washington Legislature this year. The legislation was in response to a Court of Appeals ruling which relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of state land use law as it then stood. House Bill 1653 amended land use law and purported to apply retroactively. For more on the case, see the Pacific Legal Foundation’s press release.

State v. Posey, No. 82957-8.

State v. Mullen, No. 83981-6. Lisa Mullen and Kevin Dean were convicted of stealing from their employer, Frontier Ford. After their trial Mullen and Dean discovered information from a related lawsuit that could have been useful in corroborating their defense at trial. They sought a new trial but the trial court and the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) both held the defendants could have obtained the evidence on their own, and that the evidence too speculative to be material.

Personal Restraint Petition of Chad Alan Pierce, No. 83731-7.

Personal Restraint Petition of Eric Sheridan Flint, No. 83815-1.

Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., No. 83743-1. Delbert Williams was injured on the job in Idaho while working for a subcontractor of a Washington general contractor. Mr. Williams submitted a worker's compensation claim in Idaho and was paid worker compensation benefits by the Idaho State Insurance Fund. Later, he sued the general contractor for negligence in Washington. The trial court dismissed the action, and the Court of Appeals (Div. 3) held that Williams was barred from relitigating the issue in a new jurisdiction.

Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Mgmt., No. 83768-6. TeleTech terminated newly-hired employee Jane Roe (a pseudonym) after she failed a pre-employment drug screening test. Roe was authorized to use medical marijuana under the Medical Use of Marijuana Act. Roe sued Teletech alleging wrongful termination, arguing on appeal that the Act allows a civil cause of action and that it expresses a public policy favoring medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) rejected Roe’s appeal, noting that the Act only allows a defense to criminal prosecution but does not create any civil cause of action. The ACLU of Washington, which filed a brief in Roe's support, has more on the case.

Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. Dept of Transp., No. 83771-6. Union Elevator brought an inverse condemnation action, alleging that a Department of Transportation highway project had destroyed access to its property. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) previously ruled in Union Elevator’s favor, holding that it was entitled to relocation assistance benefits under Washington's Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act. In this subsequent appeal, the Court of Appeals held the State is liable for interest on damages under the Relocation Act, but denied attorney fees in excess of the statutory maximum under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

In re PRP of Raymond Martinez, No. 83219-6.

• Optimer Intl, Inc. v. RP Bellevue, LLC, No. 83807-1
• State v. Lui, No. 84045-8
• State v. Wilson, No. 83797-0
• Crown, Cork & Seal v. Smith & Dept of L&I, No. 83854-2
• Niccum v. Enquist, No. 83983-2
• State v. Williams, No.83992-1
• State v. Huwe, No. 82987-0

State v. Lui, No. 84045-8. Defendant Sione Lui was convicted for second degree murder in the strangulation death of his fiancee. He argues that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the State's medical examiner and DNA expert testified based partially on forensic evidence developed by by non-testifying individuals. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed his conviction.

State v. Wilson, No. 83797-0. Jason A. Wilson appeals a trial court's order denying his motion (1) to correct the offender score to which he had agreed when he pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree identity theft, and (2) to resentence him using the corrected offender score. He argues that the trial court erred when it refused to resentence him. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that his offender score was not incorrectly calculated.

Crown, Cork & Seal v. Smith & Dept of L&I, No. 83854-2. The question in this case is whether Sylvia Smith had a preexisting disability at the time of a 1997 industrial accident. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the trial court erred in determining that Smith's injury qualified as a “previous bodily disability” under the Industrial Insurance Act.

Niccum v. Enquist, No. 83983-2. After an automobile accident between Jeffery Niccum and Ryan Enquist, an arbitrator awarded Niccum, the plaintiff, an award of $24,496. The defendant Enquist requested a trial which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff but a smaller award. The judge determined that the defendant had not improved his position at trial and awarded attorney fees and some costs to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) agreed that the plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees and costs.

State v. Williams, No.83992-1. Defendant Michael Williams was convicted of obstructing a law enforcement officer when he made false statements, including giving a false identity, to police officers investigating a theft. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed the conviction.

State v. Huwe, No. 82987-0. Review granted only for the issue of the trial court, by impaneling a jury of residents from a different county, denied the defendant his constitutional right to be tried by a jury of the county where the alleged offenses were committed.

• Qualcomm, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, No. 83673-6
• State v. Sims, No. 83779-1
• Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3
• ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7
• State v. Simms, No. 83826-7
• State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4

State v. Sims, No. 83779-1. Jack Sims pled guilty of first degree child molestation. He was sentenced to in prison, with 60 months of minimum mandatory confinement, but the court suspended this sentence in imposing a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative. The court also entered an order prohibiting Sims from entering or residing in Cowlitz County. Sims appealed this banishment, arguing it is a violation of his right to due process and equal protection under the constitution. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the order banishing Sims from the county for life impermissibly impinged on his constitutional right to travel. The Court vacated the entire sentence, including the banishment, and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3. Coach USA Transit contracted with Community Transit to provide commuter transit service between King and Snohomish counties. Thereafter Coach USA Transit assigned the contract to First Transit. In 2004, a 5-vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 5 involving both a First Transit bus and a Community Transit bus. Community Transit settled 42 claims incurring $1,250,950 to investigate and settle the claims. First Transit refused to defend or indemnify Community Transit, despite an indemnification clause in the party’s contract. Community Transit sued, seeking to enforce the indemnity clause. The trial court ruled in First Transit’s favor. Community Transit argued the agreement requires First Transit to indemnify it for tort claims caused by the combined negligence of Community Transit and third parties, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held the contract does not does not clearly and unequivocally state this intention, and affirmed the dismissal of the claims against First Transit.

ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7. The State Gambling Commission denied ZDI Gaming’s application to distribute electronic pull-tab machine incorporating cash card technology, finding ZDI’s pull tab machine was an illegal “gambling device.” A Thurston County Superior Court judge overruled the Commission. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the Commission’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and ruled in ZDI’s favor.

State v. Simms, No. 83826-7. Daniel Simms was convicted of first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree assault, and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. As he was armed when committing the crimes the length of confinement for the firearm sentencing enhancements was doubled. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether there is a constitutional requirement to give notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty.

State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4. The Thurston County Superior Court denied Samuel Donaghe’s motion to issue a RCW 9.94A.637(1) certificate of discharge for his rape convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed. The Supreme Court has consolidated this case with State v. Jones, No. 83451-2.

• State v. Robinson, No. 83525-0
• State v. Barber, No. 83640-0
• State v. Coucil, No. 83654-0
• Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe, Inc., No. 83660-4
• Whatcom County Fire Dist. No. 21 v. Whatcom County, No. 83611-6
• State v. Millan, No. 83613-2
• State v. Ford, No. 83617-5
• City of Seattle v. May, No. 83677-9
• State v. Martin, No. 83709-1
• Blair v. TA-Seattle East #176, No. 83715-5
• Hardee v. DSHS, No. 83728-7

State v. Barber, No. 83640-0. Danny Barber pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to felony driving under the influence of intoxicants. The trial court sentenced him to 51 months of confinement, with no community custody. Subsequently, the Department of Corrections informed the court that a mandatory term of 9 to 18 months of community custody applied to Barber’s crime of felony DUI, but DOC recommended no community custody. The court stated it was not bound by a plea agreement and modified Barber’s judgment and sentence to add a term of 9 to 18 months of community custody. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the trial court had the authority to modify the sentence.

State v. Coucil, No. 83654-0. Nikeemia Coucil was arrested and charged with felony harassment after threatening to kill Paul Carlson. He failed to appear at a hearing on the charge. Eventually arrested and convicted of a lesser charge of misdemeanor harassment, Coucil was also convicted of bail jumping. Coucil argued that as he was convicted of a misdemeanor, his bail jumping conviction should have been sentenced as a misdemeanor. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) disagreed, holding that for sentencing purposes bail jumping is classified according to the underlying charge at the time the defendant jumps bail—not according to the ultimate conviction.

Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe, Inc., No. 83660-4. Timothy and Eri Jackowski purchased a waterfront home in Mason County in 2004. Following landslide damages to the house, the Jackowskis sued the seller, the seller’s agent, and their own real estate agent, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeal (Div. 2) affirmed in part and reversed in part, dismissing all claims against the seller’s real estate agency, reinstating the purchaser’s statutory and common law claims against their own agent, and reversomg dismissal of the breach of contract claims against the sellers as they were not properly before the trial court. The Supreme Court granted the petitions for review of both the sellers and the purchaser’s agent.

Whatcom County Fire Dist. No. 21 v. Whatcom County, No. 83611-6. Although a fire district asserted it was not equipped to serve more new structures, the county’s comprehensive development plan stated the fire district was able to provide adequate services based on its current taxing abilities. As a result, a hearing officer determined the fire district was precluded from asserting a lack of ability to do so on a project by project basis. The superior court reversed. The Court of Appeals (Div. I) ruled against the fire district and reinstated the permit approvals, holding that the evidence was substantial and sufficient to support the examiner’s finding that fire district had capacity to provide services to new developments.

State v. Millan, No. 83613-2. Defendant Francisco Millan was convicted of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm. Police had responded to a report that a man and woman were fighting in a car. The police arrested Millan and seized the firearm they found during the search of the vehicle incident to his arrest. On appeal, Millian argued that under Arizona v. Gant the search of his vehicle was unlawful. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that Millan had waived his right to appeal the adminssion of evidence seized during the search by failing to file a motion to suppress. The Supreme Court is consolidating this case with State v. Robinson, No. 83525-0.

State v. Ford, No. 83617-5. Tyrone Ford was convicted of second and third degree child rape. The different degrees reflected that the victim was 13 years old during the first incident and 14 years old during the second incident. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed the first count but upheld the conviction for third degree child rape. The Court held that sending the jury back to the jury room to fill in a blank verdict form relating to second degree rape charge was manifest error affecting defendant’s right to fair trial; the trial court did not err by allowing state to amend alleged dates of charged incidents in information to conform to proof at trial; statements by two prospective jurors about their experiences with sexual abuse did not violate defendant’s right to impartial jury; and defense counsel did not perform deficiently in connection with prospective jurors’ discussions of those experiences.

City of Seattle v. May, No. 83677-9. Robert May was convicted for violation of a permanent domestic violence protection order. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held the order was facially valid.

State v. Martin, No. 83709-1. Timothy Martin was convicted of kidnapping and robbery charges. On appeal, Martin argued that the prosecutor’s questions concerning his opportunity to tailor his testimony to the evidence introduced at trial infringed his rights under article I, section 22 of the Washington Constitution to be present at trial, to meet witnesses face to face, and to testify in his behalf. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) disagreed, noting that the federal constitution permits a jury to consider a defendant’s opportunity to tailor testimony, and that the questions were allowable under the Washington Constitution.

Blair v. TA-Seattle East #176, No. 83715-5. Maureen Blair, a commercial truck driver, was injured when she slipped and fell in a puddle of spilled gasoline at truck stop. She sued the truck stop operator. The trial court struck several of Blair’s witnesses, including her expert medical witnesses, as a sanction for Blair’s willful violations of the trial court’s discovery orders. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that the trial court acted within its discretion. As causation could not be established without expert medical testimony, the trial court properly dismissed the case in the truck stop’s favor.

Hardee v. DSHS, No. 83728-7. The Department of Early Learning revoked Kathleen Hardee’s license to operate a home daycare after the Department learned that Hardee’s 19-year-old son was accused of molesting a child he was babysitting. (The child did not attend the daycare and the incident did not take place at the daycare.) In revoking Hardee’s license, the Department cited a number of other incidents involving her son. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed the revocation.

• State v. Robinson, No. 83444-0
• State v. Grier, No. 83452-1
• State v. Jones, No. 83451-2
• State v. Marohl, No. 83570-5
• Mills v. W. Wash. Univ., No. 83597-7

State v. Jones, No. 83451-2. Cliff Jones pleaded guilty to first degree child molestation and was sentenced to 130 months of incarceration and 36 months of community custody. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) ordered resentencing in 2007, and the trial court resentenced Jones to 51 months of incarceration and 36 months of community custody. The court credited the 81 months Jones spent incarcerated toward his 51-month prison sentence and ordered his release, but the court did not credit the time he spent incarcerated in excess of 51 months toward his 36 months of community custody. Jones appealed his sentence, arguing the court should apply the time spent in prison in excess of 51 months toward his community custody term, and the failure to do so violated the prohibition on double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court was not in error.

State v. Marohl, No. 83570-5. Mixed martial arts fighter James Marohl was convicted of third-degree assault in Mason County Superior Court after an altercation at the Little Creek Casino in Shelton. Marohl stepped between an intoxicated patron and another person and claims he was merely attempting to restrain the drunk man, Joseph Peterson. Others testified that Marohl applied a chokehold and “drove” Peterson into the ground. Peterson suffered scrapes and bruises to his face and eye and his prosthetic arm was broken off at the elbow. Assault in the third degree requires a showing that the defendant, with criminal negligence, “causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm.” The question in this case is whether the floor qualifies as a “weapon or other instrument.” The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that evidence was sufficient to show that the floor of a casino bar was a thing likely to produce bodily harm, and affirmed Marohl’s conviction.

Mills v. W. Wash. Univ., No. 83597-7. Perry Mills, a tenured theater professor at Western Washington Univerisity, was suspended for two academic quarters without pay after the University received numerous complaints from students and staff about his verbally abusive behavior. Mills sued and the trial court judge denied relief. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that the university did not breach its employment contract with professor and that his suspension was not a violation of his free speech rights. However, the Court held that the University had improperly held a closed disciplinary hearing in violation of the open hearing provision of Administrative Procedure Act. The Court vacated the trial court decision and the University appealed.

• State v. S.S.Y., No. 83299-4
• Bowie v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 83426-1
• Rahman v. State of Wash., No. 83428-8
• Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Lee, No. 83433-4
• Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., No. 83385-1

Bowie v. Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 83426-1. Richard and Annette Bowie, as franchisees of Valpak Direct Marketing Systems, Inc., create and distribute advertising coupon mailings to Washington residential addresses. The Department of Revenue (DOR) categorized this activity as “publishing” and taxed the Bowies under the business and occupations (B & O) tax rate applicable to persons engaged in the publishing business. The Bowies obtained refunds for overpaid taxes based on the DOR’s classification. The DOR later rescinded this classification as the printing and mailing is done by a third party. The trial court granted summary judgment to the DOR. On appeal the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Rahman v. State of Wash., No. 83428-8. Rizwana Rahman was injured while riding in a state vehicle as an unauthorized passenger. She had accompanied her husband, an intern with the Department of Ecology, on a trip to Spokane when he lost control of the vehicle and crashed. She filed suit against the State of Washington for damages associated with her injuries. The trial court dismissed her complaint. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed, holding that the State is vicariously liable for Mrs. Rahman’s injuries under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and remanded for further proceedings.

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Lee, No. 83433-4. After a workers’ compensation claimant was awarded a pension for a permanent total disability, the employer, Puget Sound Energy, requested second injury fund relief. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals denied relief, and the Superior Court, King County, affirmed the Board decision. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that employer was entitled to jury trial on whether claimant had a “previous bodily disability” at time he suffered disabling injury.

Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., No. 83385-1. Motorist Alizon Veit was seriously injured when a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad freight train collided with her car at a railroad crossing in Bellingham. Veit sued, claiming the railroad engineer negligently operated the train at an unreasonable and excessive speed. The trial court dismissed Veit’s excessive speed claims and entered judgment on jury verdict in favor of railroad. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed the trial court, holding that the Federal Railroad Safety Act preempted Veit’s excessive speed claim where the train was traveling at the speed limit prescribed under federal regulation at time of collision.