Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

The Supreme Court of Washington will issue rulings in three cases tomorrow, involving religious freedom, overservice of alcohol, and attorney misconduct.

City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ, No. 80588-1 (briefs and arguments). This case reviews whether a city violated a church’s religious freedoms when it forbade the church from hosting a tent city for the homeless without a permit. The Court of Appeals held that such a moratorium was constitutional. Also at issue is a question of constitutional significance: whether the Court of Appeals properly refused to address the church’s claims under the state constitution when the church did not provide analysis patterned upon the factors in with the factors State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 (1996). In Gunwall the Supreme Court provided specific factors to analyze to determine whether the Washington Constitution guarantees broader protections for fundamental rights than the U.S. Constitution.

Faust v. Albertson, No. 81356-6 (briefs and argument). Faust appealed this case after the Division One Court of Appeals overturned a jury award of $14 million for the injuries she and her family sustained after being hit by a drunk driver. She had sued the bar the driver had been drinking at before the crash for "negligent overservice" of alcohol to the driver after he was already drunk. The dispute in the case is over the type and level of evidence needed to establish that the establishment's bartenders negligently continued to serve drinks to someone who was visibly intoxicated. Both the WA Association for Justice Foundation (formerly the Trial Lawyers Association) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving filed amicus briefs in the case.

In re Discipline of Vanderveen, No. 200,569-1 (briefs and argument). Attorney Mark Vanderveen was convicted of a felony for accepting $20,000 cash that he believed to be proceeds of an illegal drug ring and failed to properly report the cash to federal authorities. He argues that the Supreme Court should reject the Washington State Disciplinary Board’s recommendation that he be disbarred for his felony conviction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Court will hear argument on four cases on the topics of... (Docket, case briefs)

During the morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hear:

In re the Detention of Bryan Duncan, No. 81230-6. This case is on appeal from Division Three Court of Appeals, and originated in Benton County Superior Court when the state filed a request to civilly commit Duncan as a sexually violent predator. Three questions are on appeal to the Supreme Court.

First, did the trial court err when it allowed evidence to be presented that Duncan had refused a pre-trial mental examination? Second, did it err by allowing into evidence Duncan's plan to live with a convicted sex offender after being released from prison, but not allowing Duncan to explain that the potential roommate hadn't re-offended since getting out of detention? Third, did the court err by refusing to allow Duncan to provide evidence about the effectiveness of the sex offender treatment program at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island?

Bianca Faust, et al. v. Mark Albertson, et al. No. 81356-6. Faust appealed this case after the Division One Court of Appeals overturned a jury award of $14 million for the injuries she and her family sustained after being hit by a drunk driver. She had sued the bar the driver had been drinking at before the crash for "negligent overservice" of alcohol to the driver after he was already drunk. The dispute in the case is over the type and level of evidence needed to establish that the establishment's bartenders negligently continued to serve drinks to someone who was visibly intoxicated. Both the WA Association for Justice Foundation (formerly the Trial Lawyers Association) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving filed amicus briefs in the case.

During the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hear:

State v. Eriksen, No. 80653-5.This case originated in Whatcom County District Court, and concerns whether tribal law enforcement officers have authority to pursue motorists beyond the limits of tribal lands after having observed them commit a traffic infraction on the reservation. Ms. Eriksen was pursued by a tribal police officer for a suspected DUI while on Lummi Reservation in Whatcom County, but the officer didn't actually stop her until they were outside the boundaries of the reservation. Eriksen was convicted for a DUI, and challenged the legality of the stop by the tribal officer.

State v. Rivera-Santos, No. 81445-7. This case arises from an appeal to a Clark County Superior Court decision. The defendant was observed driving under the influence of alcohol in Clark County, and a police chase ensued that didn't end until Oregon officers stopped him in Portland. Rivera-Santos was convicted of a DUI in Oregon, and the question before the court is whether the defendant's constitutional right against double jeopardy prevents him from being convicted for the same crime in Washington state. The trial court believed it was double jeopardy, and dismissed the case, the superior court disagreed. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, asking for review as a matter of great public interest.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link