New cases accepted for review
The Supreme Court granted several petitions for review during its March 2 conference.
- Qualcomm, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, No. 83673-6
- State v. Sims, No. 83779-1
- Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3
- ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7
- State v. Simms, No. 83826-7
- State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4
Qualcomm, Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, No. 83673-6. Qualcomm is seeking a refund of retail sales taxes it paid after a Department of Revenue ruling. Qualcomm sells a communications system to trucking companies to assist them with tracking and managing vehicles. After an audit, the Department of Revenue determined that Qualcomm was improperly paying the lower business and occupations (B & O) tax service rate, and DOR assessed Qualcomm $900,573 based on its assumption that the tracking portion of Qualcomm's system is a “network telephone service,” which is taxed at a higher rate. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) upheld the Department of Revenue assessment.
State v. Sims, No. 83779-1. Jack Sims pled guilty of first degree child molestation. He was sentenced to in prison, with 60 months of minimum mandatory confinement, but the court suspended this sentence in imposing a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative. The court also entered an order prohibiting Sims from entering or residing in Cowlitz County. Sims appealed this banishment, arguing it is a violation of his right to due process and equal protection under the constitution. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the order banishing Sims from the county for life impermissibly impinged on his constitutional right to travel. The Court vacated the entire sentence, including the banishment, and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 83795-3. Coach USA Transit contracted with Community Transit to provide commuter transit service between King and Snohomish counties. Thereafter Coach USA Transit assigned the contract to First Transit. In 2004, a 5-vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 5 involving both a First Transit bus and a Community Transit bus. Community Transit settled 42 claims incurring $1,250,950 to investigate and settle the claims. First Transit refused to defend or indemnify Community Transit, despite an indemnification clause in the party’s contract. Community Transit sued, seeking to enforce the indemnity clause. The trial court ruled in First Transit’s favor. Community Transit argued the agreement requires First Transit to indemnify it for tort claims caused by the combined negligence of Community Transit and third parties, but the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) held the contract does not does not clearly and unequivocally state this intention, and affirmed the dismissal of the claims against First Transit.
ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm'n., No. 83745-7. The State Gambling Commission denied ZDI Gaming’s application to distribute electronic pull-tab machine incorporating cash card technology, finding ZDI’s pull tab machine was an illegal “gambling device.” A Thurston County Superior Court judge overruled the Commission. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the Commission’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and ruled in ZDI’s favor.
State v. Simms, No. 83826-7. Daniel Simms was convicted of first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree assault, and first-degree unlawful possession of a firearm. As he was armed when committing the crimes the length of confinement for the firearm sentencing enhancements was doubled. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether there is a constitutional requirement to give notice of intent to seek an enhanced penalty.
State v. Donaghe, No. 83738-4. The Thurston County Superior Court denied Samuel Donaghe’s motion to issue a RCW 9.94A.637(1) certificate of discharge for his rape convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed. The Supreme Court has consolidated this case with State v. Jones, No. 83451-2.
