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

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.