Docket No. 87425-5 (from King Case No. 11-2-25185-3 SEA)
Synopsis: Whether plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of RCW 43.135.034, which requires supermajority legislative approval of tax increases and voter approval of tax increases that result in spending above the state limit, have standing and present a justiciable controversy, and if so, whether the statute conflicts with state constitutional provisions governing referenda and requiring a simple majority to pass most legislative measures.
Blog Archives
Washington v. Snapp
Docket No. 84223-0 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 37210-0) 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 4th 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 Continue reading
Unruh v. Cacchiotti
Docket No. 84707-0 (from Grant Case No. 07-2-01238-5) Facts: Petitioner Lisa Unruh filed a medical malpractice action against respondent Dino Cacchiotti, her former orthodontist, in the Superior Court for Grant County, claiming that his negligent treatment of her when she was a minor was the cause of tooth loss she subsequently suffered as an adult. The trial court granted summary judgment for Cacchiotti, ruling that Unruh’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Continue reading
Washington v. Immelt
Docket No. 83343-5 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 60991-2) Facts: Petitioner Helen Immelt was convicted of violating Snohomish County Code §10.01.040, which prohibits the sounding of vehicle horns for purposes other than public safety, after sounding her automobile’s horn for nearly ten minutes outside of her neighbor’s home following a dispute. Immelt appealed her conviction on grounds that §10.01.040 is an unconstitutionally overbroad ordinance that infringes the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §5 of the Washington State Constitution. Continue reading
Bradburn v. North Central Regional Library District
Docket No. 82200-0 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 57850-2) Facts: Petitioner Sarah Bradburn filed suit against the respondent North Central Library District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, asserting that the library’s policy of installing filtering software on its public computers to bar internet access to adult-oriented websites Continue reading
Bellevue v. Lee
Docket No. 81473-2 (from King Case No. 07-1-03641-1 SEA) Facts: Respondent Shin Lee was cited for driving with a suspended driver’s license after his driver’s license had been suspended by the Department of Licensing as a result of his failure to pay a traffic citation. Continue reading
Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ
Docket No. 80588-1 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 58296-8) Facts: Enforcing a preexisting moratorium on new land use permit applications, the respondent city of Woodinville denied Northshore United Church of Christ’s application for a permit to erect an encampment for the homeless on church property. Continue reading
Locke v. Seattle
Docket No. 79222-4 Facts: Respondents Kevin Locke and personal representative of Gary Lindell brought suit against petitioner city of Seattle for injuries sustained during Locke’s employment as a fire fighter trainee, and Lindell’s wrongful death in a police officer training exercise. In both cases, the city challenged the “right to sue” provision in the Washington Law Enforcement Officers’ and Fire Fighters’ Retirement System Act (Washington Revised Code §41.26.281), arguing that it violates the city’s sovereign immunity and the privileges and immunities clause of Article I §12 of the Washington State Constitution. Continue reading
King v. King
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
Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority
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 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Continue reading