Today's Arguments - March 8, 2011
Today the Court will hear four arguments, two in the morning and two in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session (9:00 am)
In re Van Camp, No. 200811. Whether an attorney's misconduct was sufficient for disbarment.
The disciplinary board found that W. Russell Van Camp agreed to represent a client, but did not follow the client's instructions to try to settle the case quickly. He did not respond to settlement offers by the other side and misled his client about the nature of a settlement offer. According to the board, he charged $25,000 for relatively little work and failed for years to refund unearned fees.
Feil v. Eastern Wa Growth Management Hearings Board, No. 843694. Whether a zoning permit issued for the construction of a bike trail through agrarian land was a violation of the Growth Management Act.
In the 1950s the state condemned a right-of-way for building a highway along the Columbia River, through land owned by some farmers. The highway was never built, and the state leased the land back to the farmers.
The State later decided to build a bike trail through some of the farmers’ orchards, on the land now leased to the farmers. Since the land was zoned agricultural the State applied for a “recreational overlay district permit,” which allows for recreational activities in areas not zoned for recreation. The permit was granted.
The farmers challenged the overlay permit, arguing that it violated the County’s comprehensive land use plan (under the Growth Management Act). The Douglas County Superior Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the permit was a “site specific rezone.” The farmers argue that the overlay permit is a “zoning amendment” which must be reviewed for compliance with the GMA.
The farmers further claim that the overlay permit violates the GMA by failing to conserve agricultural lands, but the court held that the bike trail is “not inconsistent with the use of this land for agriculture.” An appeal to Division Three Court of Appeals was unsuccessful.
Afternoon session (1:30 pm)
State v. Perez-Valdez, No. 840032. Whether the trail court abused its discretion by its rulings on admission of evidence and mistrial.
Alberto Perez-Valdez was accused of raping his foster daughters. The court excluded evidence that one of the daughters had burned down the home of another foster parent because the evidence might prejudice the jury. The court also excluded general evidence about Perez-Valdez’s good character from closing argument.
A CPS investigator testified during cross-examination that the girls were telling the truth. The defense objected to this as improper vouching by an expert witness. The court instructed the jury to disregard this comment, but denied Perez-Valdez’s motion for mistrial.
Perez-Valdez claims that all three rulings were abuses of the court’s discretion.
Moeller v. Farmers Insurance, No. 845000. Whether an auto insurance company should compensate a vehicle owner for the reduction in value of his car after an accident, and whether a class certification was appropriate.
David Moeller was involved in an auto accident. He notified his insurer, Farmers Insurance Company, who paid for repairs to the car. Moeller sued Farmers because he was not compensated for the “diminished value” of his car. (A vehicle suffers “diminished value” when some damage, such as weakened metal, cannot be fully repaired.) The trial court held that the insurance policy did not cover diminished value and granted summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed.
The trial court also issued a class certification order, including people who received collision insurance payments from Farmers (with some exceptions). Farmers challenges this order because Moeller cannot prove that Farmers is liable to every class member.
