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

Docket No. 79969-5  Facts:  After responding to a fire at the home of petitioner David Reep’s parents that was apparently the result of the methamphetamine manufacturing process, police officers obtained a warrant to search Reep’s bedroom for methamphetamine-related items.  While executing the warrant, the officers found photographs stored on Reep’s computer that they considered suspicious and obtained another warrant to search for items related to “child sex.”  This search revealed photographs taken of children without their knowledge that Reep subsequently admitted were taken for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire.  Consequently, Reep was convicted of four counts of voyeurism.  Reep appealed his conviction, asserting that the search warrant violated the 4^th Amendment to the United States Constitution’s requirement of particularity and that the evidence derived from it should therefore have been suppressed. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79967-9  Facts:  Petitioner Feature Realty, Inc. filed a malpractice claim against Terrence Butler and Jerry Neal, its former attorneys, and the law firm of Preston Gates Ellis, L.L.P.  in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California.  Preston Gates Ellis moved to stay the case indefinitely on grounds of forum non conveniens and Neal moved to quash the service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The superior court granted both motions and issued a six month continuation to allow Feature Realty to refile the action in Washington.  Feature Realty subsequently refiled the action in the Superior Court for King County and filed a request for dismissal with the Superior Court for Los Angeles County.  However, having failed to timely serve the defendants with the complaint filed in the Superior Court for King County, Feature Realty voluntarily dismissed the case shortly thereafter.  When Feature Realty refiled the case with new counsel, the defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the second dismissal of the case constituted an adjudication on the merits under Washington State Court Rule 41, which bars cases that have twice been voluntarily and unilaterally dismissed from being refiled. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78888-0  Facts:  Petitioner Lawrence Foxhoven was convicted of malicious mischief in the Superior Court for Whatcom County after etching graffiti on the windows of several businesses.  Foxhoven appealed his conviction, asserting that the trial court’s admission of evidence of his prior criminal history of graffiti violated Washington Rule of Evidence 404(b), which excludes evidence of prior bad acts when that evidence is used for the purpose of proving conformity with those acts on a different occasion.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Foxhoven’s conviction. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79978-4 (from Snohomish Case No. 04-3-02385-0)  Facts:  After petitioner Brenda King and respondent Michael King filed for divorce, Michael King moved to be named the primary residential parent for their three children.  At the subsequent custody hearing, Michael King was represented by counsel while Brenda King appeared pro se due to her indigency.  The trial court awarded Michael King primary residential care of the children and decision-making authority.  Brenda King subsequently moved for a new hearing and requested that counsel be appointed at public expense to represent her.  The trial court denied the motion, ruling that it lacked authority to appoint counsel to represent Brenda King insofar as the legislature has not authorized funding for representation for indigent parties in child custody hearings. Continue reading →

Docket No. 80006-5  Facts: In response to the petitioner Seattle Housing Authority’s issuing of Rule #42, which prohibits signs, flyers, placards, advertisements, and similar materials from the exteriors of unit doors in public housing, the respondent Resident Action Council sought a declaratory judgment that Rule #42 violates the 1^st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79977-6  Facts:  Asserting violations of the Consumer Protection Act (Washington Revised Code §19.86), petitioner Indoor Billboard, Inc. filed suit against respondent Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc. in the Superior Court for King County.  Indoor Billboard alleged that Integra Telecom engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice by charging its Washington local service customers a surcharge that it falsely labeled as a presubscribed interexchange carrier charge (a type of surcharge permitted under Federal Communications Commission regulations).  The superior court granted summary judgment for Integra Telecom, ruling that Indoor Billboard failed as a matter of law to establish that Integra Telecom engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice and that the voluntary payment doctrine bars Indoor Billboard’s claim in any event. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79976-8  Facts:  Respondent Curtis Beaupre, an officer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office, filed suit against petitioner Pierce County in the Superior Court for King County after he was accidentally injured by another officer while pursuing a suspect.  Pierce County moved for summary judgment, asserting that the professional rescue doctrine bars Beaupre’s suit. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79971-7  Facts:

Petitioner Melanie Morin brought suit against respondent employer Clarence Harrell for unpaid overtime wages. Harrell challenged the constitutionality of Initiative 518 enacted in 1988 that amended the Minimum Wage Act, Wash. Rev. Code §49.46, by replacing the exemption for domestic service providers with an exemption limited to individuals employed in casual labor. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79432-4 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 34282-1)  Facts:  Respondent Yulanda Leach pleaded guilty to attempted assault of a child in the second degree, and was sentenced to 23.25 months confinement and between nine and 18 months community custody. The Department of Corrections petitioned for post-sentence review on the community custody component of the sentence, Continue reading →