Docket No. 84998-6 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 40247-5) Synopsis: Whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine or the ministerial exception bars the superior court from adjudicating a church employee’s claims for negligent retention, negligent supervision, and sex discrimination against a church and its senior pastor. Continue reading
Daily Archives: Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Bothell v. Barnhart
Docket No. 84907-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63494-1) Facts: Respondent James Barnhart was convicted of stalking in the Bothell Municipal Court, whose jurisdiction includes portions of both King County and Snohomish County. Barnhart appealed his conviction, asserting that as the alleged stalking occurred entirely within Snohomish County, empaneling a jury that included residents of both counties violated Article I §22 of the Washington State Constitution, which requires that juries be comprised of residents of the county in which the offense is charged. Continue reading
Edmonson v. Popchoi
Docket No. 84695-2 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63051-2) Facts: Petitioner Csaba Kiss sold a parcel of land to respondent Ivan Popchoi and his wife pursuant to a statutory warranty deed that included a duty to defend against any claims to title. After J.E. and Naomi Edmonson, the owners of an adjacent property, brought an adverse possession claim to a portion of the property in the Superior Court for King County, Kiss declined to assist in defending against the claim and instead agreed to pay damages to compensate the Popchois for the value of the disputed portion of the property. Continue reading
Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government v. Mukilteo
Docket No. 84921-8 (from Snohomish Case No. 10-2-06342-9) Facts: Washington Revised Code §46.63.170 authorizes local governments to enact ordinances that allow the use of automated traffic safety cameras to issue notices of traffic infractions. Pursuant to this authorization, the respondent city of Mukilteo enacted an ordinance authorizing and setting forth guidelines for the use of automated traffic safety cameras. Residents of Mukilteo subsequently submitted Initiative 2, which would forbid the city from installing automated traffic safety cameras without voter approval, limit the amount of fines that could be imposed for infractions arising from automated safety camera surveillance, and repeal the ordinance authorizing the use of automated traffic safety cameras, for inclusion on the ballot. After the Mukilteo City Council directed that the initiative be included on the ballot, Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government petitioned the Superior Court for Snohomish County for a declaratory judgment that Initiative 2 is beyond the scope of the local initiative power and an injunction preventing its inclusion on the ballot. Continue reading