Docket No. 85732-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63572-7)
Synopsis: Whether a landowner who causes his property to become landlocked may seek to condemn a private way of necessity under RCW 8.24.010, and if so, whether such an action may be barred by the statute of limitations or laches.
Blog Archives
Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.
Docket No. 85949-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63518-2)
Synopsis: Whether the federal “economic realities” test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and if so, whether the trial court correctly articulated that test in its jury instructions.
Synopsis: Whether the federal “economic realities” test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to the Washington Minimum Wage Act, and if so, whether the trial court correctly articulated that test in its jury instructions.
Broughton Lumber Co. v. BNSF Railway Co. & Harsco Corp.
Docket No. 85905-1 (from Federal Case No. CV-09-110 KI)
Synopsis: Whether defendants who started a fire on their property that spread to plaintiffs property can be said to have destroyed or otherwise injured the plaintiffs tress for purposes of the timber trespass statute, RCW 64.12.030.
Synopsis: Whether defendants who started a fire on their property that spread to plaintiffs property can be said to have destroyed or otherwise injured the plaintiffs tress for purposes of the timber trespass statute, RCW 64.12.030.
Jongeward v. BNSF Railway Co.
Docket No. 85781-4 (from Federal Case No. CV-09-0010-RMP)
Synopsis: Whether a defendant who started a fire on its property that spread to the plaintiffs property can be said to have destroyed or otherwise injured the plaintiffs trees for purposes of the timber trespass statute, RCW 64.12.030, and whether damages under the statute must be reasonable in relation to the value of the underlying property.
Synopsis: Whether a defendant who started a fire on its property that spread to the plaintiffs property can be said to have destroyed or otherwise injured the plaintiffs trees for purposes of the timber trespass statute, RCW 64.12.030, and whether damages under the statute must be reasonable in relation to the value of the underlying property.
Kiely v. Graves
Docket No. 84828-9 (from Jefferson Case No. 09-2-00230-3) Facts: The city of Port Townsend conveyed an alley dedicated for public use to petitioner Kenneth Graves and his wife Karen, who own an adjacent parcel of land. Respondent William Kiely and his wife Sally, the owners of another parcel of land adjacent to the alley, subsequently filed an action in the Superior Court for Jefferson County asserting adverse possession of the alley. The trial court entered a judgment and decree in favor of the Kielys, ruling that the city’s easement did not preclude them from adversely possessing the alley and that their use of the alley met the requirements for adverse possession. The Graves appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court of Washington. Continue reading
Gendler v. Batiste
Docket No. 85408-4 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 39333-6) Facts: Respondent Michael Gendler was seriously injured while riding his bicycle across Seattle’s Montlake Bridge when the bicycle’s front wheel was suddenly caught in a seam on the bridge’s deck grating, throwing Gendler off of the bicycle and onto the roadway. After learning that several other bicyclists had been injured in similar accidents on the same bridge, Gendler submitted a public records request to the Washington State Patrol for copies of police reports on all accidents on Montlake Bridge involving bicycles. The Washington State Patrol conditioned release of the reports upon Gendler signing a certification that he would not use the records in a lawsuit against the state of Washington or any of its agencies. Asserting that this requirement violates the Public Records Act (Washington Revised Code §42.56), Gendler subsequently filed suit against petitioner John Batiste, the chief of the Washington State Patrol, in the Superior Court for Thurston County. Continue reading
Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash.
Docket No. 85366-5 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 38921-5)
Synopsis: Whether an insurer who employed an attorney to help determine coverage may invoke the attorney-client privilege to defeat the insureds discovery request in a first party action for bad faith denial of coverage.
Synopsis: Whether an insurer who employed an attorney to help determine coverage may invoke the attorney-client privilege to defeat the insureds discovery request in a first party action for bad faith denial of coverage.
Five Corners Family Farmers v. Washington
Docket No. 84632-4 (from Franklin Case No. 09-2-51185-6) Facts: Easterday Ranches, Inc., in anticipation of opening a cattle feedlot on property that it owns in Franklin County, drilled a well on the property in order to provide the anticipated 450,000 to 600,000 daily gallons of water needed to operate the feedlot. Petitioner Five Corners Family Farmers, the owner of a nearby property, subsequently petitioned the Superior Court for Thurston County for a declaratory judgment that Washington Revised Code §90.44.050, which exempts the withdrawal of public groundwater for stock-watering purposes from permit requirements, limits such withdrawals to 5,000 gallons per day. The superior court ruled that §90.44.050 permits the unlimited withdrawal of public groundwater for stock-watering purposes. Continue reading
Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe, Inc.
Docket No. 83660-4 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 36944-3) Synopsis: Whether, in an action arising out of the sale of a home, the economic loss rule bars a claim for damages for fraudulent concealment, bars the remedy of rescission of the sales contract for negligent misrepresentation, and bars an action against the buyers’ realtor for breach of common law and statutory duties. Continue reading
Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning v. Whatcom County
Docket No. 84675-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63646-4) Facts: Petitioner Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning filed suit against respondent Whatcom County in the Superior Court for Skagit County, asserting that buffer zone and buildable lot size provisions in the shoreline master program Whatcom County promulgated pursuant to the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (Washington Revised Code §90.58) violate Washington Revised Code §82.02.020’s prohibition against the levying of taxes, fees, or charges on development by local governments. Continue reading