Opinions - September 16, 2010

The Supreme Court released opinions in three cases on Thursday.

Curtis v. Lein, No. 83307-9. Tambra Curtis lived on a farm owned by Jack and Claire Lein. Curtis was injured after falling through a wooden dock on the Lein property. The dock was subsequently destroyed. The trial court ruled in favor of the property owners, saying that Curtis failed to prove that the Leins knew or should have known about the dock’s allegedly dangerous condition, and that causes other than the Leins’ negligence could have contributed to the dock’s failure. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) agreed. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, holding that Curtis could invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) to fill in the evidentiary gaps caused by the dock’s destruction. The court, with Justice Debra Stephens writing the opinion, remanded the case for trial.

Sanders v. State, No. 82849-1. Justice Richard Sanders sued the Attorney General's Office, alleging violations of the the Public Records Act by withholding hundreds of requested records under various exemptions claimed without explanation.

In 2004, Sanders sent a request to the Attorney General's Office for all documents related to his visit to the McNeil Island Special Corrections Center and the actions taken by the Commission on Judicial Conduct in response to his visit. Over a hundred responsive documents were withheld or redacted, with no explanation of why the documents fell under the cited statutory exemptions to disclosure.

The trial court found that the AGO had violated the PRA by not providing the required "brief explanation" for how exemptions apply, and that some of the withheld records should have been disclosed. Sanders asked for a $70 per day penalty, the trial court fined the AGO $5 per day for withholding records and $3 per day for not explaining the exemptions; and awarded Sanders 37.5% of his attorney fees. He appeals both the ruling that some of the documents were exempt, and the amounts of the penalties and fees.

The Supreme Court, with Justice Debra Stephens writing, held that the AGO's failure to provide a brief explanation of each exempt record violated the PRA and should be considered as an aggravating factor when setting penalties for withholding nonexempt documents. The court affirmed the trial court’s penalties, and awarded Justice Sanders 25 percent of his costs and attorneys fees.

State v. Montano, No. 82855-8. Jose Montano resisted arrest for assault and officers had to shock him twice before they could handcuff him. On the way to jail, Montano threatened the officer driving him with statements including “I know when you get off work, and I will be waiting for you,” “I'll kick your a**,” and “I know you are afraid, I can see it in your eyes.”

Montano was charged with fourth degree assault (domestic violence) and intimidating a public servant. The trial court dismissed the charge of intimidating a public servant, holding that the threats made did not necessarily show intent to influence a public servant’s actions. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) reversed, reasoning that a jury could infer that Mr. Montano’s threats were designed to get the officer to change his course of action. The Supreme Court, with Justice Charles Johnson writing, disagreed, reversing the Court of Appeals, holding that Montano’s threats and taunts provided no evidence of any attempt to influence a police officer.

Today's argument - Sanders v. State - March 31, 2010

At 9:00 a.m. this morning the Court will hear one argument on a Public Records Act case. Because it involves a sitting justice, the entire Court may be replaced by pro tem justices (judges drawn from a lower court to review just this case). (Docket, briefs) After today the Court will recess from arguments until May.

Richard Sanders v. State, No. 82849-1. Justice Sanders is asking the Court to find that the Attorney General's Office violated the Public Records Act by withholding hundreds of requested records under various exemptions claimed without explanation; and to determine whether the penalties and costs awarded to Sanders by the trial court were sufficient.

In 2004, Sanders sent a request to the Attorney General's Office for all documents related to his visit to the McNeil Island Special Corrections Center and the actions taken by the Commission on Judicial Conduct in response to his visit (which led to a different Sanders v. State). Over a hundred responsive documents were withheld or redacted, primarily under the "related to a current case or controversy" exemption to the PRA (RCW 42.56.290), with no explanation of why the documents fell under that exemption.

The trial court found that the AGO had violated the PRA by not providing the required "brief explanation" for how exemptions apply, and that some of the withheld records should have been disclosed. Sanders asked for a $70 per day penalty, the trial court fined the AGO $5 per day for withholding records and $3 per day for not explaining the exemptions; and awarded Sanders 37.5% of his attorney fees. He appeals both the ruling that some of the documents were exempt, and the amounts of the penalties and fees.

This is the case that led to the claim that Sanders was self-serving in his Yousoufian v. Sims majority opinion. Due to that controversy, the appellate court determined it didn't have the authority to review, and kicked the case up to the Supreme Court.

Today's Opinions, May 14, 2009

Sanders v. State, No. 80393-5. In a 5-4 decision by a panel of pro tem justices (judges drawn from lower appellate courts to act as State Supreme Court justices in this case only), the Court upholds an appeals court decision that the State is not obligated to pay for a judge's defense in an ethics case if the judge "knows or should know that the conduct of which he or she is accused is unethical and therefore not an official act."

In 2003, Justice Richard Sanders visited the Special Commitment Center (SCC) on McNeil Island, a State facility where certain convicted sex offenders were being held. A complaint was filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct alleging that Justice Sanders talked with SCC residents who had cases pending before the Washington State Supreme Court. In 2005, the Commission held that Justice Sanders had violated Canons 1 and 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

During the Commission's investigation, Justice Sanders asked the attorney general to provide him with a defense at public expense, citing RCW 43.10.030 and .040, which charges the attorney general with the duty to defend state officers in their official capacity. The attorney general refused, and Justice Sanders filed suit. A superior court judge dismissed the action, was upheld on appeal, and is upheld today. One dissent challenges that the majority fails to enforce the plain meaning of the statute or to create a workable framework for deciding future cases; a second dissent faults the majority for "improperly rel[ying] on the outcome of the underlying case as the basis for its decision." (case briefs and argument)

Chadwick Farms Owners Association v. FHC, LLC, No. 80450-8 and Emily Lane Homeowners Ass’n v. Colonial Dev., LLC, No. 80459-1 (consolidated). Can a Limited Liability Corporation sue or be sued after its certificate of formation is canceled? No, says the Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice Madsen, after cancellation an LLC ceases to exist as a legal entity and can neither sue nor be sued. These consolidated cases arose when homeowners associations sued the LLCs that had built their communities but had subsequently been canceled. While the LLCs no longer exist, however, the Court holds that the LLC members may be sued based on the same veil-piercing provisions that would apply while the LLC remained in existance. Justice Charles Johnson, joined by three other justices, dissents. (case briefs and argument)