Twelve of Judge Wiggins’ opinions were appealed to the Washington Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied review in six appeals, which in effect affirms the Court of Appeals ruling. Meanwhile, six of Wiggins’ opinions were accepted for review by the Supreme Court. Of those six, four opinions were overturned.
Nepstad v. Beasley, 77 Wash.App. 459, 892 P.2d 110 (1995)
Lorena Nepstad’s automobile was struck from behind by Jocelyn Fox. Fox was driving a vehicle insured by her parents and Nepstad recorded their names from the insurance card and filed suit against Fox’s parents. The error was discovered after the statute of limitations had run. Nepstad amended her complaint to include Fox, but the trial court held that the amendment did not relate back to the original complaint because the omission of Fox was “inexcusable neglect.” The suit was therefore barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that misreading the insurance card immediately after the shock of the accident was not inexcusable neglect.
State v. Morris, 77 Wash.App. 948, 896 P.2d 81 (1995)
Joellen Eileen Morris purchased cocaine drugs from an undercover police informant. She was convicted of “delivery of a controlled substance.” The Court of Appeals held that purchasing drugs is not “delivery” and reversed the conviction.
Cary v. Allstate Insurance Company, 78 Wash.App. 434, 897 P.2d 409 (1995)
Aloha Cary’s husband Richard was stabbed and killed by a friend, Arnold Bennett, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Bennett’s homeowner’s insurance policy excluded criminal acts committed while insane. Thus, when Cary won a lawsuit against Bennett, his insurance company refused to indemnify him.
Cary sued the insurance company, arguing that the exclusion violated public policy, but the Court of Appeals held that it did not. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision on appeal.
In re Marriage of Maples, 78 Wash.App. 696, 899 P.2d 1 (1995)
James Maples received worker’s comp and social security disability payments, and his children (living under their mother’s custody) also received direct payments on account of his disability. During a child support modification, the Superior Court treated the children’s payments as income to the children. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the payments should have been counted as income to Maples.
State v. Aten, 79 Wash.App. 79, 900 P.2d 579 (1995)
Vicki Aten was convicted of second degree murder after a four-month old child she was babysitting died under her car. Aten confessed to causing a baby’s death, and was convicted of manslaughter based on her confessions and admissions. The Court of Appeals ruled that courts cannot consider a confession as evidence of guilt unless it is corroborated by independent proof. The court found that insufficient independent evidence corroborated Aten’s confessions and admissions, and reversed her conviction. The ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
State v. Breedlove, 79 Wash.App. 101, 900 P.2d 586 (1995)
Before his murder trial, defendant moved to dismiss his appointed council and represent himself. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant was convicted at trial. The Court of Appeals held that since the motion was not designed to delay the trial and would not have “impaired the orderly administration of justice,” it should have been granted. Therefore, defendant’s conviction was reversed.
Tacoma Athletic Club, Inc. v. Indoor Comfort Systems, Inc., 79 Wash.App. 250, 902 P.2d 175 (1995)
Indoor Comfort Systems sold and installed a dehumidification system for Tacoma Athletic Club, but the system didn’t work properly and the Club sued. The trial court awarded damages to the Club for breach of warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Indoor Comfort Systems appealed, claiming that the UCC did not apply to its contract because the contract was primarily services (installing the system) rather than goods (the system itself).
The Court of Appeals held that the predominant factor in the contract was the sale of goods, so the UCC applies. However, the court also held that damages had been improperly measured. Thus, the court reversed the damage award and remanded for a proper determination of damages.
Malyon v. Pierce County, 79 Wash.App. 452, 903 P.2d 475 (1995)
Plaintiff sued Pierce County, claiming that the chaplaincy program of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department violates both state and federal constitutions. The trial granted summary judgment for the County. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that it was not clear from the record whether the program was constitutional, so summary judgment was improper. This holding was later reversed by the state Supreme Court.
State v. Avendano-Lopez, 79 Wash.App. 706, 904 P.2d 324 (1995)
Defendant was convicted of drug possession. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked defendant whether he had sold heroin before and whether he was an illegal alien. Defendant moved unsuccessfully for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Appeals held that the questions were misconduct, but that the misconduct was not prejudicial, and therefore affirmed the trial court.
State v. Rundquist, 79 Wash.App. 786, 905 P.2d 922 (1995)
An undercover government agent set up a company and began buying and selling illegal fish eggs. Defendant purchased eggs from the agent, and was charged with illegally purchasing salmon and steelhead. Partway through the trial, the judge dismissed the case due to outrageous government conduct. The Court of Appeals held that this was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and reversed the dismissal.
State v. Kealey, 80 Wash.App. 162, 907 P.2d 319 (1995)
Defendant Carolyn Kealey left her purse at a department store, and store personnel found drugs in it and called the police. The police searched the purse to determine the owner. After determining Kealey’s name, police set up a sting operation resulting in her arrest.
Kealey moved to suppress all evidence gathered as a result of learning her identity, because her purse was searched without a warrant. The Court of Appeals held that defendant had a privacy interest in her purse, but that the search was proper because a warrantless search is justified to identify the owner of lost property.
State v. Berlin, 80 Wash.App. 734, 911 P.2d 414 (1996)
Defendant Leslie Berlin shot and killed a friend, and was charged with murder. The State charged intentional murder and felony murder as separate theories. At trial, the court also instructed the jury on manslaughter, a lesser included offense of the felony murder. The jury convicted defendant of manslaughter.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the jury should not have been instructed on manslaughter because manslaughter is not a lesser included offense of intentional murder. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant’s conviction. This decision was itself reversed by the Supreme Court.
Dietz v. Doe, 80 Wash.App. 785, 911 P.2d 1025 (1996)
Plaintiff Melissa Dietz’s husband was killed by an unknown driver, and suit was filed against John Doe. Plaintiff discovered that the driver had contacted an attorney, and moved to compel the attorney to reveal the driver’s identity. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the driver’s identity was protected under attorney-client privilege. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
Baker v. Schatz, 80 Wash.App. 775, 912 P.2d 501 (1996)
Plaintiffs were injured because of exposure to chemicals while working for defendant company, and sued the company. The company moved for summary judgment based on immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act. Plaintiffs argued that their injuries resulted from “deliberate intention” by the company, so that the immunity would not apply. The trial court denied the company’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of whether there was deliberate intent.
Martinez v. City of Tacoma, 81 Wash.App. 228, 914 P.2d 86 (1996)
Marvin Martinez sued the City of Tacoma under Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, and won his claim. The trial court limited his attorney fee award to fifty percent of the damages, as Martinez had agreed to this contingency fee with his lawyer. The Court of Appeals held that limiting the attorney’s fees violated the intent of the Law Against Discrimination, and ordered the trial court to compute reasonable attorney’s fees.
Seizer v. Sessions, 82 Wash.App. 87, 915 P.2d 553 (1996)
Don Sessions married his first wife and then left her in Texas without officially divorcing her. He married again and was divorced, and then married a third time. Sessions purchased a winning lottery ticket before dying in Washington. His first and third wives dispute who should get the money. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the third wife.
Washington and Texas treat marriage differently, which affects who has rights to the money. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding that since Texas has the “most significant relationship to the determination of ownership” of the money, Texas law should be applied. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
State v. Squally, 81 Wash.App. 685, 915 P.2d 1151 (1996)
The Nisqually Indians consented to State criminal jurisdiction over their reservation in 1957. Defendants committed crimes on “after-acquired reservation land” (land added to the reservation after 1957) and were convicted in state courts. The Court of Appeals held that state courts do not have jurisdiction over the after-acquired land and reversed the convictions. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
Jose Morales was arrested in 2004 following a vehicle collision in which he continued to drive for one mile after the wreck. The officer at the scene asked an interpreter to communicate the warning to Morales following discovery that he only spoke Spanish.
Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane
As readers know, Charlie Wiggins is running against Justice Richard Sanders for Position 6 on the Supreme Court. Wiggins briefly served as a judge on the Court of Appeals. In that capacity he authored 17 majority opinions. Below is a summary of each of his opinions.
As we 
Bainbridge Island attorney 
