Tomorrow's opinions, September 10, 2009
The Supreme Court will issue opinions in at least four cases tomorrow.
Armantrout v. Carlson & Cascade Orthopaedics, No. 81195-4 (briefs and argument). Whether a child’s provision of economically valuable services to her parents can used to prove that the parents were financially dependent on the child. Eighteen-year-old Kristen Armantrout lived with her blind mother in Washington, and acted as her mother’s companion and aide in performing everyday activities. She also contributed her small Social Security check to the family budget, although the majority of the family’s money was provided by her father, who was working out-of-state. Kristen died due to a complication following ankle surgery, and her parents sued for wrongful death, claiming they were dependent on Kristen for support. The trial court found for Armantrout, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that economically valuable services cannot be considered when determining if there was financial dependence.
Seattle v. Robert St. John, No. 81992-1 (briefs and argument). St. John was injured in a motorcycle crash on the Alaskan Way viaduct, and was taken to Harborview Medical. While there he was arrested by a state patrol officer for driving under the influence, and was asked to consent to a blood alcohol test, without being told that a warrant would be sought if he refused. St. John did refuse, so the officer obtained a warrant to perform the test. The Implied Consent law (RCW 46.20.308(1)) indicates that once consent has been refused, the test may not be performed. But a competing statute (RCW 46.20.308) indicates that lack of consent does not prevent an officer from obtaining a warrant. The Court is being asked to reconcile these two statutes.
Dot Foods, Inc. v. WA Dep’t of Revenue, No. 81022-2 (briefs and argument). The question here is whether Dot Foods, an out-of-state seller doing business in Washington, should qualify for an exemption from the state business & occupation tax. The state Department of Revenue determined Dot Foods was not entitled to this exemption and the Court of Appeals agreed.
State v. Heddrick, No. 80841-4 (briefs and argument). A trial court determined that Steven Ray Heddrick, Jr., was competent to stand trial without conducting an evidentiary hearing, without having written competency evaluations, and without entering a written competency order. Heddrick argues that the trial court failed to follow proper procedures in declaring him competent to stand trial, and that he was denied a lawyer during the competency hearing.
