Docket No. 79884-2  Facts:  J&J Celcom acquired fractional interests in several regional cellular telephone partnerships in which AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. was the majority partner.  AT&T Wireless Services subsequently invoked its majority interest and voted to buy out J&J Celcom, offering to buy out J&J Celcom at a price higher than a third party appraisal.  After J&J Celcom declined this offer, AT&T Wireless Services voted to sell the assets of the partnerships at their appraised value to an affiliated party, dissolve the partnerships, and pay J&J Celcom its prorated share of the sale proceeds.  J&J Celcom responded by filing suit against AT&T Wireless Services in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging that AT&T Wireless Services’ actions breached its duty of loyalty to the partnership and to its partner. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79973-3  Facts:

Petitioner City of Seattle filed a motion to dismiss respondents Stephen Klein’s and Melissa Deibert’s right to appeal their underlying conviction in light of subsequent arrest warrants issued as a result of failing to appear at their respective review hearings after appealing their convictions. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79222-4  Facts: Respondents Kevin Locke and personal representative of Gary Lindell brought suit against petitioner city of Seattle for injuries sustained during Locke’s employment as a fire fighter trainee, and Lindell’s wrongful death in a police officer training exercise. In both cases, the city challenged the “right to sue” provision in the Washington Law Enforcement Officers’ and Fire Fighters’ Retirement System Act (Washington Revised Code §41.26.281), arguing that it violates the city’s sovereign immunity and the privileges and immunities clause of Article I §12 of the Washington State Constitution. Continue reading →

Docket No. 80034-1  Facts:  Petitioner Kaela Atchison, the personal representative of her deceased father William Atchison’s estate, filed a wrongful death action against his former employer, respondent Great Western Malting Company, in the Superior Court for Clark County, claiming that workplace exposure to pesticides and contaminated dust was the cause of the cancer that led to his death.  The superior court dismissed the action on grounds that the three year statute of limitations had expired.  Atchison appealed the superior court’s decision, asserting that as she was a minor at the time of her father’s death and therefore ineligible to be appointed personal respresentative of his estate and to bring a wrongful death action, the statute of limitations tolled until she reached her majority. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78889-8  Facts:  Petitioner Raymond Hatchie was convicted of unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance after being denied a motion to suppress the evidence of methamphetamine manufacturing equipment seen by police in his home when they were looking for a suspect pursuant to an arrest warrant. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79027-2  Facts:  Petitioners Joseph and Karen Martinelli initiated arbitration proceedings against Dan Paulson Construction, Inc., alleging that Dan Paulson Construction and its subcontractors performed defective work in constructing their home.  Dan Paulson Construction subsequently tendered defense in the arbitration proceeding to its insurer, respondent Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company.  Prior to the arbitration hearing, Dan Paulson Construction and the Martinellis agreed that any award would be a lump sum award.  Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company responded by petitioning the Superior Court for San Juan County for a declaratory judgment as to which of the Martinellis’ claims are covered under Dan Paulson Construction’s insurance policy and, consequently, what portion of any lump sum award would be payable by Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company.  Pursuant to this declaratory judgment action, Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company issued a subpoena to the arbitrator.  After the Martinellis protested Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company’s ex parte communication with the arbitrator, Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company dismissed its declaratory judgment action.  However, when the Martinellis reached a settlement with Dan Paulson Construction, Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company filed another declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court for San Juan County in an effort to determine what portion of the settlement amount is attributable to claims covered under Dan Paulson Construction’s insurance policy.  The Martinellis counterclaimed that Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company breached the duty it owed to Dan Paulson Construction and acted in bad faith. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78984-3  Facts:  Petitioner Demetrius Williams was charged with the possession of a controlled substance and released on bail.  When Williams subsequently failed to appear at an omnibus hearing, he was also charged with and later convicted of bail jumping.  Williams appealed his conviction, asserting that the document charging him with bail jumping based on the underlying charge of possession of a controlled substance was insufficient insofar as it failed to identify the penalty class of the charge for which he failed to appear.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Williams’ conviction. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78979-7  Facts:  Petitioner Mitchell Varnell was convicted of four counts of solicitation to commit murder in the Superior Court for Snohomish County after offering an undercover police officer $60,000 to murder his ex-wife, her brother, and both of her parents.  Varnell appealed his convictions, asserting that his solicitation of the murder of four people in a single conversation constitutes a single unit of prosecution of solicitation to commit murder.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Varnell’s convictions. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79974-1  Facts:  Petitioner Mark Ludvigsen was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in 2002 after submitting to a breath test.  When Ludvigsen went to trial in 2005, the law governing the validity of breath tests had changed.  In particular, under the 2004 amendments to Seattle Municipal Code §11.56.020(A)(1)(a), the city no obligates itself to demonstrate that the test thermometer is certified.  Thus, while the results of Ludvigsen’s breath test would have inadmissible under §11.56.020(A)(1)(a) prior to 2004, they were admissible under the amended version of §11.56.020(A)(1)(a).  The trial court ruled that the amendments do not apply retroactively.  The city of Seattle appealed this ruling to the Superior Court for King County, which reversed, holding that the amendments are procedural in nature and therefore are assumed to apply retroactively.  Continue reading →

Docket No. 79966-1  Synopsis: Must the Board of Spokane County Commissioners establish and fund a tenth district court judge position? Continue reading →