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 will issue opinions in at least two cases tomorrow.

Federal Way School District 210 v. State, No. 80943-7 (briefs and argument). Whether salary disparities between school districts are unconstitutional. The Washington Constitution states that “The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools.” Art. IX, § 2. Historically, the state pays different amounts per teacher to different school districts, based in part on the salary levels of those districts when the system was initiated. The Federal Way School District, individual teachers, and students sued the state, claiming that this unequal funding violates the constitution because it is not “general and uniform.” The King County Superior Court agreed, finding that the differences in funding had no relation to differences in education costs. The state counters that its constitutional duty is to create a common education system, not to guarantee precisely equal funding to every district. This case is on direct appeal from superior court.

This case has the potential of significantly altering school funding allocations. A ruling for the school district favor would have no immediate impact—the ruling would be declaratory in nature, and it would be up to the state legislature to respond and design a general and uniform education funding model within the guidelines of the ruling. During argument the justices seemed reluctant to meddle in the educational decisions of the legislature.

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of Beito, No. 77973-2 (briefs and argument). This case arises out of the Court of Appeals (Div. 2), and concerns whether it is a violation of due process for a trial court judge to set an exceptional sentence based on facts which were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

Beito pleaded guilty to first degree murder of a 14-year-old girl, with a maximum penalty of 374 months in prison. The trial court sentenced him to 504 months after finding aggravating circumstances demonstrating he also committed third degree “rape of a child” in connection with the murder. The finding was based on factual statements that were agreed to by Beito, but he did not agree there was a connection between the rape and murder. That was determined by the judge. He filed a Personal Restraint Petition alleging due process and double jeopardy violations. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

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

Today the Court will be hearing argument in four cases, two in the morning, and two in the afternoon. (Docket, case briefs)

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

Tanya Gregoire v. Oak Harbor, No. 81253-5. On appeal from Division One Court of Appeals, this action for wrongful death was brought by the estate of an inmate who hung himself in the Oak Harbor jail. The question before the court is whether a city can use the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk to defend against a wrongful death action for a jailhouse suicide.

Edward Gregoire, the deceased, exhibited erratic emotional behavior while he was being transported to jail, tried to run, and ten minutes after being placed in his cell hung himself with a bedsheet. The jury found for the City after being instructed on the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk; but Gregoire argues such defenses cannot be used due to the "special relationship" duties owed to an inmate by jail staff.

Fitzpatrick v. Okanogan County, No. 81257-8.  This case is on appeal from Division Three Court of Appeals, and presents the Court with the question of whether a landowner may be compensated (via inverse condemnation) for damage caused to his property by a public project.

The damaged property was a log home built by the Fitzpatricks near the Methow River, which was washed away when the river abruptly changed course due to the construction of a dike upstream. The dike was a joint project of the state and county. The trial court granted summary judgment for the county, relying on the Common Enemy Doctrine (a rule allowing landowners to divert surface water, even to the detriment of neighoring landowners), but was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

In the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m., the court will hear:

State v. Kyllo, No. 81164-4. This case arises out of Division Two Court of Appeals, and concerns whether Kyllo received effective counsel in his trial for second degree assault of a fellow inmate. Kyllo appealed on the grounds that his attorney made several errors, primarily related to jury instructions about his self-defense claim.

In re the Personal Restraint Petition of Beito, No. 77973-2. This case arises out of Division Two Court of Appeals, and concerns whether it is a violation of due process for a trial court judge to set an exceptional sentence based on facts which were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

Beito pleaded guilty to first degree murder of a 14-year-old girl, with a maximum penalty of 374 months in prison. The trial court sentenced him to 504 months after finding aggravating circumstances demonstrating he also committed third degree "rape of a child" in connection with the murder. The finding was based on factual statements that were agreed to by Beito, but he did not agree there was a connection between the rape and murder. That was determined by the judge. He filed a Personal Restraint Petition alleging due process and double jeopardy violations. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition.

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