Today's opinions: August 5, 2010

Posted on August 5, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The court issued rulings in three cases today. Here is a brief summary of each case:

In Re the Honorable Judith Raub Eiler, No. 200,701-5. Judge Judith Eiler is a district court judge in King County. Based on a number of complaints, disciplinary proceedings were brought against her for treating litigants in an “angry, abusive, and condescending manner.” Eiler argues that there was not enough evidence, that the penalty is too high, and that punishing her for her demeanor violates her freedom of speech. Eiler appeals a disciplinary recommendation that she be suspended for 90 days without pay. The Supreme Court, with Justice Jim Johnson writing the lead opinion, found that Judge Eiler’s behavior only violated the judicial cannon requiring that a judge be “patient, dignified, and courteous.” The court reduced her suspension to a 5-day period.

Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6. Phillip and Monica Blackshear sued Centennial Contractors Enterprises for injuries caused when a steel beam was dropped on Phillip. After they won the suit, they filed a complaint for loss of consortium on behalf of their three children. The complaint stated that it would have been impractical to include their claims with their parents’ suit. George Kelly was appointed guardian ad litem for the children. At trial, the children’s case was dismissed because the court said their claims should have been joined with their parents’ claims. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed, holding that since the children did not yet have a guardian ad litem it would have been impossible to join them to the suit, and that it would have been impractical for them to bring their claims until the results of their father’s surgery were known. The Supreme Court, with Justice Gerry Alexander writing the lead opinion, agreed, holding that there were general issues of material fact that precluded a summary dismissal of the claim.

State v. Tibbles, No. 80308-1. Micah Tibbles appealed his misdemeanor convictions for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. During a traffic stop of Tibbles, Trooper Norman Larsen detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from Tibbles’ car. The trooper did not arrest Tibbles or seek a warrant, but conducted an warrantless search of the car, whereupon he discovered marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The district court, superior court, and Court of Appeals all upheld the search under the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement, which allows law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless searches when obtaining a warrant is not practical because the delay would compromise officer safety, facilitate escape, or allow destruction of evidence. Justice Debra Stephens, writing for the Supreme Court, said that the exigent circumstances exception would not apply in this case and that the search of Tibbles’ vehicle was unconstitutional under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Today's arguments, Jan. 19, 2010

Posted on January 19, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases today.

In the morning session:

Bellevue School District v. E.S., No. 83024-0 (briefs). Whether a child has the right to be represented by counsel at an initial truancy hearing. A student in the Bellevue School District, “E.S.,” missed 73 of the first 100 days of school, and the District filed a truancy petition. E.S., who was not represented by counsel at the truancy hearing, was found truant. E.S.’s lawyer moved to dismiss because E.S. had not been represented at the truancy hearing.

The school district argues that E.S. had no right to appointed counsel because she couldn’t actually be sanctioned at the initial truancy hearing. King County Superior Court ruled for the school district, but on appeal the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held that “[a] child’s interests in her liberty, privacy, and education are in jeopardy at an initial truancy hearing, and she is unable to protect these interests herself. Due process demands she be represented in the initial truancy hearing.”

Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6 (briefs). Phillip and Monica Blackshear sued Centennial Contractors Enterprises for injuries caused when a steel beam was dropped on Phillip. After they won the suit, they filed a complaint for loss of consortium on behalf of their three children. The complaint stated that it would have been impractical to include their claims with their parents’ suit. George Kelly was appointed guardian ad litem for the children.

At trial, the children’s case was dismissed because the court said their claims should have been joined with their parents’ claims. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed, holding that since the children did not yet have a guardian ad litem it would have been impossible to join them to the suit, and that it would have been impractical for them to bring their claims until the results of their father’s surgery were known. (For financial reasons, the parents’ suit was brought while the results of the surgery were still unknown.)

In the afternoon session:

Freeman v. Freeman, No. 82283-2 (briefs). What must be proved for a trial court to terminate a permanent protection order? Robin Freeman got a permanent protection order against Rob Freeman due to domestic violence. Rob, a member of the military, has since moved away. He lost a hand in Iraq, and this made it necessary to retrain and change careers within the military. However, he needed a security clearance and could not get one because of the permanent protection order.

Rob moved to terminate the protection order. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Robin is currently in reasonable fear of Rob. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Rob had not been in Washington or had contact with Robin since 1998, that he had violated neither the protection order nor any law, and that “due to time and distance, there is no evidence to support a current fear” of physical harm.

Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of Medina, No. 82306-5 (briefs). Whether the time limit for appealing a Commission’s decision ran from the initial appeal or the motion for reconsideration. Roger Skinner appealed his dismissal from the City of Medina police force to the Medina Civil Service Commission (Commission). The Commission upheld his dismissal, and denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration. Skinner filed an appeal in King County Superior Court, and the trial court dismissed, saying Skinner had failed file his appeal of the initial order within 30 days as required by law. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed, holding that Roger Skinner had appealed within 30 days of the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Tags: , , , ,

New cases granted review

Posted on April 30, 2009 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court issued orders granting review in several cases on April 28, including a public records case, and a petition for restoration of the right to possess a firearm. Orders here.

  • O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9
  • Hudson v. Hapner, No. 82409-6
  • Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2
  • Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6

UPDATE: Case details after the jump.

O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9 (whether email metadata is a public record under the Public Records Act). The issue is whether an email's "metadata" (e.g.,the To, From, Date, & Subject fields, the sender's IP address, and other data embedded in the email) attached to a public official's email are subject to disclosure. During a city council meeting, Deputy Mayor Maggie Fimia mentioned she had received an email from two citizens regarding a zoning issue. One of the persons identified, Beth O’Neill, was in the audience, but had not sent the email. She requested to see a copy. Fimia forwarded the email from her personal computer to a public account, and the original metadata was stripped off in the process. O'Neill was given a copy of the forwarded email, but requested to see the original, which had since been deleted from Fimia's computer. The Court of Appeals held that metadata is a “public record” within the Public Records Act, and is subject to disclosure.

Hudson v. Hapner, No. 82409-6 (withdrawal of voluntary request for trial). In 1998, Clifford Hapner drove his vehicle into the rear of Lea Hudson's vehicle. Hudson sued Hapner, his wife, and his employer, Matthew Norton Corporation, and the case went to mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Hudson $14,538 in damages, and Hapner requested a trial. In 2003, a jury awarded Hudson $292,298. Hapner appealed, arguing successfully that the trial court improperly excluded his expert's testimony. After remand, Hapner filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal of his request for trial, obviously recognizing the utility of paying the damages awarded in arbitration. The trial court denied his withdrawal of request for trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals said Hapner had the right to voluntarily withdraw his trial request without court permission; the Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MARs) did not preclude Hapner from voluntarily withdrawing trial request after trial judgment was reversed on appeal; and Hapner did not “waive” his right to voluntarily withdraw trial request by proceeding to trial.

Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2 (restoration of right to possess firearm).Following an automobile accident that occurred in 1993, James Rivard was charged with vehicular homicide, and pleaded guilty in June 1997. The judgment and sentence were entered according to the vehicular homicide statute in effect in 1993. The law in 1993 prohibited Rivard from possessing a firearm while he was under DOC supervision. After serving his sentence and paying his court-imposed financial obligations, Rivard petitioned the court to restore his right to possess firearms in September 2006. The trial court granted his petition, and the State appealed. The State argued the legislature reclassified vehicular homicide from a class B felony to a class A felony in 1996, and the law prohibits those convicted of a class A felony from ever possessing a firearm. Before the Court of Appeals, the State argued that the law in effect on the date Rivard was originally sentenced is irrelevant. The Court of Appeals concluded the State was correct, and reversed the trial court's order restoring his right to possess firearms.

Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6 (dismissal of loss of parental consortium claims). In 2003, Phillip Blackshear was injured in a work accident. Phillip and his wife sued the construction contractor for negligence, but did not assert a claim of loss of parental consortium on behalf of their three children. A jury returned a verdict for the Blackshears, finding Centennial negligent. Subsequently, the parents filed a petition to obtain the appointment of a guardian ad litem to pursue the matter on behalf of the children based on the loss of parental consortium. A court commissioner appointed George Kelley as GAL. The trial court dismissed the children's case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the issue of whether children's loss of parental consortium claim was required to be dismissed did not become moot after parent's underlying negligence claim had been adjudged.
Tags: , , , ,