Docket No. 87811-1 (from Whatcom Case No. 10-2-03230-1)
Synopsis: Whether under Louden v. Myhre, 110 Wn.2d 675, 756 P.2d 128 (1988), attorneys representing a defendant hospital corporation in a medical malpractice action are prohibited from having ex parte contact with nonparty treating physicians employed by the hospital corporation, and if so, whether Louden was abrogated by amendments to RCW 5.60.060(4) providing that the waiver of the physician-patient privilege for any one physician following the filing of a medical malpractice lawsuit constitutes a waiver of the privilege as to all physicians.
Blog Archives
Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake
Docket No. 87395-0 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 29683-1)
Synopsis: Whether a seller who claims to be ready, willing, and able to perform a real estate sales contract that violates the statute of frauds may avoid the remedy of restitution of the earnest money if the parties disagree as to the terms of the contract, and if so, whether the buyer bears the burden of proving that the seller is not ready, willing, and able to perform.
Synopsis: Whether a seller who claims to be ready, willing, and able to perform a real estate sales contract that violates the statute of frauds may avoid the remedy of restitution of the earnest money if the parties disagree as to the terms of the contract, and if so, whether the buyer bears the burden of proving that the seller is not ready, willing, and able to perform.
State v. Franklin
Docket No. 87253-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64033-0)
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a prosecution for cyberstalking erroneously disallowed evidence that someone else committed the crime after allowing the alleged other suspect to assert her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Synopsis: Whether the trial court in a prosecution for cyberstalking erroneously disallowed evidence that someone else committed the crime after allowing the alleged other suspect to assert her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
State v. Louthan
Docket No. 85608-7 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 38472-8)
Synopsis: Whether the defendant in a prosecution for unlawful possession of a controlled substance was unlawfully arrested without a warrant for violating a city ordinance criminalizing simple possession of drug paraphernalia because the ordinance conflicts with State law, and if not, whether the defendant’s automobile was unlawfully searched incident to his arrest.
Synopsis: Whether the defendant in a prosecution for unlawful possession of a controlled substance was unlawfully arrested without a warrant for violating a city ordinance criminalizing simple possession of drug paraphernalia because the ordinance conflicts with State law, and if not, whether the defendant’s automobile was unlawfully searched incident to his arrest.
Barton v. State Department of Transportation
Docket No. 86924-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 65673-2)
Synopsis: Whether two defendants in a negligence action remained jointly and severally liable after one of the defendants entered into an undisclosed pretrial agreement with the plaintiff limiting that defendant’s liability should the plaintiff prevail at trial.
Synopsis: Whether two defendants in a negligence action remained jointly and severally liable after one of the defendants entered into an undisclosed pretrial agreement with the plaintiff limiting that defendant’s liability should the plaintiff prevail at trial.
Saleemi v. Doctor’s Associates
Docket No. 87062-4 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 40351-0)
Synopsis: Whether a party who did not seek discretionary review of a trial court ruling ordering arbitration in Washington and invalidating a contractual choice of venue clause must demonstrate prejudice from arbitration in this state in order to challenge the ruling on appeal from a judgment confirming the arbitration award.
Synopsis: Whether a party who did not seek discretionary review of a trial court ruling ordering arbitration in Washington and invalidating a contractual choice of venue clause must demonstrate prejudice from arbitration in this state in order to challenge the ruling on appeal from a judgment confirming the arbitration award.
Piel v. City of Federal Way
Docket No. 83882-8 (from King Case No. 08-2-02830-5 KNT)
Synopsis: Whether a public employee who claims he was terminated for engaging in union organizing activity may maintain a tort action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy on the basis of the policy expressed in the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act, chapter 41.56 RCW.
Synopsis: Whether a public employee who claims he was terminated for engaging in union organizing activity may maintain a tort action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy on the basis of the policy expressed in the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act, chapter 41.56 RCW.
State v. Lamb
Docket No. 86603-1 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 39849-4)
Synopsis: Whether the “saving statute,” RCW 10.01.040, permits a 1987 indecent liberties conviction to serve as the predicate offense for a current charge of unlawful possession of a firearm even though in 1988 the indecent liberties statute was amended to decriminalize the act that formed the basis of the defendant’s conviction.
Synopsis: Whether the “saving statute,” RCW 10.01.040, permits a 1987 indecent liberties conviction to serve as the predicate offense for a current charge of unlawful possession of a firearm even though in 1988 the indecent liberties statute was amended to decriminalize the act that formed the basis of the defendant’s conviction.
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.
Washington v. Rowland
Docket No. 86117-0 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64262-6) 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. Continue reading