Facts:  Audrey Blessing, who had three children from a previous marriage, married Carl Blaschka, who had four children of his own from a previous marriage, in 1964.  The couple raised all seven children together, although Blessing never legally adopted Blaschka’s children, and remained married until Blaschka’s death in 1994.  After Blessing died in an automobile accident, Blessing’s daughter Cynthia Hagensen, the personal representative of Blessing’s estate, filed a wrongful death action against the driver who caused the accident in the Superior Court for Spokane County.  Blaschka’s son John Blaschka and his siblings Julie Frank, Diana Estrep, and Carla Blaschka subsequently petitioned the superior court for a determination that they are entitled to participate as statutory beneficiaries in the wrongful death action.  Hagensen moved to dismiss the petition on grounds that the Blaschka children were not Blessing’s stepchildren under Washington Revised Code §4.20.020 and therefore are not entitled to recover under the wrongful death statute. Read more...

Facts:  Petitioner Daniel Snapp’s automobile was searched after he was stopped for driving while wearing a defective seatbelt, admitted that he was in possession of drug paraphernalia, and was taken into custody.  The search revealed evidence of identity theft and Snapp was subsequently convicted of first and second degree identity theft in the Superior Court for Pierce County.  Snapp appealed his convictions on grounds that the search was unlawful and the evidence derived from it should have been suppressed.  The Washington Court of Appeals held that the search was lawful under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, which held that a warrantless search of an automobile incident to the arrest of a recent occupant of the vehicle is lawful under the 4^th Amendment to the United States Constitution when it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle Read more...

The Lewis County Superior Court found Michael Caton guilty of failure to report as a sex offender under former RCW 9A.44.130 (2008). Caton appealed, arguing among other things that the evidence did not support his conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Caton filed a petition for review, and the Supreme Court found that the evidence was insufficient and reversed the conviction.

Facts:  Petitioner Elcon Construction, Inc. entered into a contract with respondent Eastern Washington University to refurbish Eastern Washington University’s on campus wells in order to increase the wells’ yields.  After work began and Elcon Construction discovered that it would have to drill significantly deeper than it had anticipated in order to complete the project, it demanded payment for increased costs.  Eastern Washington University refused and instead terminated the contract for cause on grounds that Elcon Construction had damaged one of the wells.  Eastern Washington University also sent a copy of its letter informing Elcon Construction that it was terminating the contract for cause to Elcon Construction’s bond surety.  Asserting breach of contract, fraud, and tortious interference with a businesss relationship, Elcon Construction subsequently filed suit against Eastern Washington University in the Superior Court for Spokane County.  After an arbitrator ruled in favor of Elcon Construction with regard to its breach of contract claim and awarded it $1,837,000 in damages, Elcon Construction pursued its tort claims in the superior court.  The superior court granted summary judgment for Eastern Washington University, ruling that Elcon Construction’s tort claims are barred by the independent duty doctrine. Read more...

Facts:  Petitioner Michael Rowland was convicted of first degree murder and taking a motor vehicle without permission in the Superior Court for Snohomish County.  Based upon the judge’s finding of deliberate cruelty, Rowland was sentenced to an exceptional sentence.  Rowland subsequently filed a personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals challenging the calculation of his offender score.  After the state of Washington conceded that Rowland’s offender score had been improperly calculated, the Washington Court of Appeals remanded the case for resentencing.  On remand, the superior court imposed a standard range sentence corresponding to the reduced offender score and reimposed the sentence enhancement for deliberate cruelty.  Rowland appealed his sentence, asserting that a jury finding was required to support the exceptional sentence under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington. Read more...

Facts:  Petitioner Daniel Posey was charged with second degree rape and first degree assault.  Although Posey was a juvenile at the time, the case was transferred from juvenile court to the Superior Court for Yakima County because Washington Revised Code §13.04.030(37)(a)(v) classifies first degree assault as a “serious violent offense.”  Posey was ultimately convicted of second degree rape but acquitted of first degree assault.  Posey was subsequently sentenced under the adult sentencing guidelines to life in prison.  Posey appealed his sentence on grounds that the superior court lacked the authority to sentence him under the adult sentencing guidelines insofar as he had been acquitted of the charge upon which its jurisdiction had been based.  The Supreme Court of Washington agreed and remanded the case to the juvenile court for resentencing.  However, as Posey had in the interim reached the age of 21, the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over him and he was instead sentenced by the superior court to a standard juvenile range sentence of 60 to 80 weeks in prison.  Posey appealed his sentence, asserting that by virtue of his age and the juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction neither the juvenile court nor the superior court have jurisdiction to sentence him. Read more...

Facts:  Respondent Dana Clausen was seriously injured while working on a commercial fishing vessel owned and operated by petitioner Icicle Seafoods, Inc.  Asserting that Icicle Seafoods wrongfully withheld maintenance and cure after he suffered his injuries, Clausen subsequently filed suit against Icicle Seafoods in the Superior Court for King County.  The jury found Icicle Seafoods liable and awarded Clausen $435,100 in compensatory damages and $1.3 million in punitive damages.  After Clausen filed a post-trial motion requesting attorney fees, the judge awarded Clausen an additional sum to reimburse him for his attorney fees.  Icicle Seafoods appealed the award directly to the Supreme Court of Washington. Read more...

Facts:  Petitioner Douglas Jasper was convicted of felony hit and run and driving with a suspended or revoked driver’s license after a trial in which an affidavit from the custodian of driving records certifying that Jasper’s driver’s license was suspended was admitted into evidence.  Jasper appealed his convictions, asserting that admitting the affidavit into evidence without allowing him to cross-examine the individual who prepared it denied him his right under the 6^th Amendment to the United States Constitution to confront witnesses against him.  The Washington Court of Appeals vacated Jasper’s conviction for driving with a suspended or revoked driver’s license, holding that the affidavit constituted hearsay and that its admission into evidence violated Jasper’s right to confront witnesses against him.  However, it affirmed Jasper’s conviction for felony hit and run, holding that overwhelming evidence supported this conviction even in the absence of the affidavit. Read more...

Synopsis: Aaron Hahn asked someone to make a girl "disappear" or appear as if she "never existed" or "just be gone." Hahn was convicted of solicitation to commit first degree murder. Read more...

Facts:  An automobile driven by respondent Fesseha Tilaye collided with an automobile driven by petitioner Patrick Williams.  Williams subsequently filed suit against Tilaye in the Superior Court for King County and the case proceeded to mandatory arbitration.  After Williams received no award at arbitration, he requested a trial de novo.  Prior to trial, Williams offered to settle the case for $3,900 but this offer was refused.  The trial court subsequently awarded Williams $7,482.  Williams sought attorney fees under Washington Revised Code §4.84.250, which grants attorney fees to plaintiffs seeking recovery of $10,000 or less who make an offer of settlement at least ten days before trial and recover as much or more than they offered in settlement.  The trial court granted the motion and awarded Williams attorney fees.  Tilaye appealed the award of attorney fees and the Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that in cases that originate in arbitration, the trial for purposes of §4.84.250 is the arbitration and that Williams’ offer of settlement was therefore untimely. Read more...