New cases accepted for review
The Supreme Court agreed to review several new cases during its July 6 conference.
- State v. Morales, No. 84197-7
- State v. Beadle, No. 84204-3
- State v. Russell, No. 84307-4
- Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 84369-4
- Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. 84500-0
- Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 84296-5
- State v. R.P.H., No. 82557-2
- Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, Elyea & Jefferson County, No. 84246-9
- Mitch Dowler, et al. v. Clover Park School District No. 400, No. 84048-2
State v. Morales, No. 84197-7. Jose Matilde Morales appealed his convictions for vehicular assault and driving under the influence, arguing (1) the trial court erroneously admitted his blood alcohol test results because the State failed to show that he was advised of his statutory right to an independent blood test, (2) the trial court erroneously admitted beer containers found during a search of his vehicle, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to establish that he operated his motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants and that he operated his vehicle in a reckless manner. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed his conviction.
State v. Beadle, No. 84204-3. Steven Beadle was convicted on two counts of first degree child molestation. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the child’s hearsay statements and unfairly prejudicial testimony regarding the child’s behavior. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed his conviction.
State v. Russell, No. 84307-4. Arthur C. Russell was convicted for first degree child rape-domestic violence. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) reversed the trial court, holding that the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of other alleged sexual abuse of the victim without giving the jury a required limiting instruction.
Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 84369-4. In this land use case, Douglas County approved a recreational overlay district to accommodate an extension of a bicycle/pedestrian trail, which borders agricultural land used for orchards. Area orchardists objected to the overlay district. The Court of Appeals (Div. 3) held that the recreational overlay district was not an amendment to the county’s comprehensive plan and that a challenge to the comprehensive plan came too late. The court also rejected the argument that the recreational overlay district ran afoul of state statutes that encourage the preservation of agricultural land. The court dismissed the challenges of the orchardists.
Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. 84500-0. David Moeller had an automobile insurance policy with Farmers Insurance Company. After the vehicle was damaged in a collision, Farmers paid the full cost of repairs, less a deductible. Moeller claimed that the policy also covered loss for the diminished value of his vehicle, but Farmers disagreed. Moeller filed a class action lawsuit, alleging breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The trial court certified a class but granted Farmers’ motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) affirmed and reversed in part, holding that diminished value was loss under the insurance policy.
Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 84296-5. A developer appealed the denial by the city of rezone requests and subdivision applications. The Court of Appeals (Div. 1) reversed, holding that Phoenix's proposed rezones implement the Woodinville comprehensive plan and current zoning code and comply with the city code's general rezone criteria.
State v. R.P.H., No. 82557-2. A former juvenile offender petitioned for the restoration of his firearms rights. The superior court denied his petition and the Court of Appeals (Div. 1) affirmed.
Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, Elyea & Jefferson County, No. 84246-9. A neighboring landowner brought a land use action challenging a conditional use permit by the county authorizing a animal boarding facility to remodel and expand facility. The Court of Appeals (Div. 2) held that the county’s decision granting a conditional use permit was a final determination, and that the challenging landowner’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the 21-day filing deadline to appeal the decision to grant the permit;
Several petitions for review were granted and immediately remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Hall, 168 Wn.2d 726 (2010):
- State v. Aarhus, No. 84140-3
- State v. Thomas, No. 83678-7
Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of State v. Williams-Walker, 167 Wn.2d 889 (2010):
- State v. Huynh, No. 82807-5
- State v. Jones, No. 79689-1
- State v. Graham, No. 80088-0
- State v. Latourette, No. 81607-7
