Today's arguments - Jan. 13, 2011

Posted on January 13, 2011 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases today (briefs, docket).

Morning session (starting at 9 a.m.)

State v. Williams, No. 83992-1. A Les Schwab store in Federal Way installed new tires on a Jeep Cherokee. Michael Williams came to pick up the vehicle, but his check was not accepted. He left a key to the vehicle with the store clerk, and said he was going to get some cash. A Les Schwab employee later noticed the Jeep was gone. When police tracked him down, Williams gave them a false name and lied about not having ID. He was eventually charged and convicted of third-degree theft, making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, and obstructing a law enforcement officer.

The obstruction statute makes it illegal to “willfully hinder, delay or obstruct” a police officer in the discharge of his duties. Williams argues based on case law that the statute applies to conduct, not pure speech. The court disagreed, holding that the plain meaning of the statute includes speech that obstructs an officer. Williams also argues that his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated.

Union Elevator and Warehouse Co. v. Department of Transportation, No. 83771-6. Union Elevator was awarded relocation expenses as a result of the Department of Transportation’s exercise of eminent domain. The trial court, however, did not award Union Elevator prejudgment interest on its award. The Department of Transportation argues that it need not pay interest because of sovereign immunity, while Union Elevator claims that sovereign immunity is waived for eminent domain proceedings.

Afternoon session (starting at 1:30 p.m.)

Cary, et. al v. Mason County, No. 83937-9. Is an assessment enacted by Mason County to fund the activities of the Mason Conservation District a valid special assessment?

Mason County enacted an annual assessment of $5.00 per parcel on “non forested” land in the county. The requirements for public entities to collect money from property owners differ depending on whether the charge is a special assessment, a tax, or a fee. Several landowners challenged the Mason County assessment, and the trial court ruled that it was an invalid tax. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the assessment is a regulatory fee rather than a tax and that it meets the statutory requirements for a regulatory fee.

This case has attracted the attention of numerous public entities and organizations who have filed amicus curiae briefs discussing whether the court should analyze whether the county's assessment was proper. (Note: The publisher of this blog filed a brief in support of the property owners.)

Tags: , , ,

New cases accepted for review

Posted on May 3, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court granted several petitions for review last week.

  • 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 


Cary v. Mason County, No. 83937-9. A group of property owners seek a declaration that a special assessment adopted by the Mason County Conservation District is an invalid and unconstitutional property tax. The superior court ruled in favor of the property owners, and the Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed. (Note: The publisher of this blog filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the property owners’ petition for review.)

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.

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,