Docket No. 87109-4 (from Original)
Synopsis: Whether the governor’s power under RCW 9.95.160 to “cancel or revoke” an offender’s probation authorizes the governor to overrule a decision of the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board granting probation, and if so, whether the offender is entitled to due process protections.
Blog Archives
Stewart Title Guaranty v. Sterling Savings Bank
Docket No. 87087-0
Synopsis: Whether equitable subrogation was available to a bank on the basis of a construction and purchase loan to a developer intended to pay off existing liens on the property, giving the bank priority over a subsequent mechanic’s lien.
Synopsis: Whether equitable subrogation was available to a bank on the basis of a construction and purchase loan to a developer intended to pay off existing liens on the property, giving the bank priority over a subsequent mechanic’s lien.
Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. King County
Docket No. 86293-1
Synopsis: Whether Snohomish County’s approval of community mitigation projects related to a sewage treatment facility was a land use decision subject to the time limit on judicial challenges under the Land Use Petition Act.
Synopsis: Whether Snohomish County’s approval of community mitigation projects related to a sewage treatment facility was a land use decision subject to the time limit on judicial challenges under the Land Use Petition Act.
State v. Pappas
Docket No. 86859-0 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 65348-2)
Synopsis: Whether in a prosecution for vehicular assault, which requires proof that the defendant inflicted “substantial bodily harm,” the trial court may impose an exceptional sentence on the basis that the defendant inflicted bodily harm that “substantially exceeds” the level necessary to satisfy the elements of the crime.
Synopsis: Whether in a prosecution for vehicular assault, which requires proof that the defendant inflicted “substantial bodily harm,” the trial court may impose an exceptional sentence on the basis that the defendant inflicted bodily harm that “substantially exceeds” the level necessary to satisfy the elements of the crime.
State v. Duncalf
Docket No. 86853-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 62237-4)
Synopsis: Whether in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), sentence aggravating factors may be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, and if so, whether the factor based on the infliction of bodily harm that “substantially exceeds” the level necessary to satisfy the elements of the crime is unconstitutionally vague.
Synopsis: Whether in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004), sentence aggravating factors may be challenged as unconstitutionally vague, and if so, whether the factor based on the infliction of bodily harm that “substantially exceeds” the level necessary to satisfy the elements of the crime is unconstitutionally vague.
Donatelli v. D.R. Strong Consulting Eng’rs, Inc.
Docket No. 86590-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 65348-2)
Synopsis: Whether in an action arising out of a contract for engineering services the independent duty doctrine permits the client’s tort claims against the engineering firm for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
Synopsis: Whether in an action arising out of a contract for engineering services the independent duty doctrine permits the client’s tort claims against the engineering firm for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash. & Lukehart
Docket No. 86511-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 65364-4)
Synopsis: Whether, in an action for hostile work environment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the employee may present evidence that conduct occurring after the amendment to Washington’s Law Against Discrimination prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination was part of a pattern of conduct that predated the amendment.
Synopsis: Whether, in an action for hostile work environment discrimination based on sexual orientation, the employee may present evidence that conduct occurring after the amendment to Washington’s Law Against Discrimination prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination was part of a pattern of conduct that predated the amendment.
Ruvalcaba v. Baek
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.
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.
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.