Blog Archives

Auburn v. Gauntt

by

Docket No. 85892-6 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 64838-1)  Facts:  Respondent Dustin Gauntt was charged by the petitioner city of Auburn with possession of marijuana in violation of Washington Revised Code §69.50.4014 and the unlawful use of drug paraphernalia in violation of Washington Revised Code §69.50.412(1).  Gauntt moved to dismiss the charges on grounds that the city of Auburn lacks the authority to charge him with violating either state statute because it has not adopted them as part of its municipal code.  The Auburn Municipal Court denied the motion to dismiss and Gauntt was convicted of both charges.  Upon appeal, the Superior Court for King County reversed and ordered the charges against Gauntt dismissed. Continue reading →

Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nicholas-Kiewit Constr. Co.

by
Docket No. 86210-9 (from King Case No. 06-2-26048-1 SEA)
Synopsis: Whether the defendant contractor in an action for damages for construction defects in Safeco Field is precluded by principles of judicial estoppel, waiver, and law of the case from asserting that the action is barred by the statute of repose. See Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 165 Wn.2d 679, 202 P.3d 924 (2009).

In re Bond Issuance of Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center

by
Docket No. 86552-3 (from Chelan Case No. 11-2-00737-0)
Synopsis: Whether the city of Wenatchees agreement to make loans to a public facilities district to cover shortfalls in the districts ability to make debt service payments on district-issued bonds is a debt of the city for purposes of the constitutional and statutory limit on municipal indebtedness, and if so, whether the amount of the debt is the total amount to be loaned over the lifetime of the agreement.

Tacoma v. Bonney Lake

by

Docket No. 84824-6 (from King Case No. 09-2-45435-3)  Facts:  The petitioner city of Tacoma has franchise agreements to supply the respondent city of Bonney Lake and other municipalities in Pierce County with water services.  Following the Supreme Court of Washington’s decision in Lane v. Seattle, in which the Court held that the city of Seattle cannot charge its ratepayers a fire hydrant fee, the city of Tacoma ceased charging ratepayers for the cost of providing and maintaining fire hydrants for the municipalities and instead billed the municipalities.  When the municipalities refused to pay, the city of Tacoma subsequently petitioned the Superior Court for King County for a declaratory judgment that the municipalities are responsible for the costs of providing and maintaining their fire hydrants.  The superior court granted summary judgment for the municipalities, ruling that the indemnification and hold harmless provisions in the franchise agreements preclude the city of Tacoma’s declaratory judgment action and require the city of Tacoma to bear all costs associated with providing and maintaining fire hydrants for the municipalities. Continue reading →

Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government v. Mukilteo

by

Docket No. 84921-8 (from Snohomish Case No. 10-2-06342-9)  Facts:  Washington Revised Code §46.63.170 authorizes local governments to enact ordinances that allow the use of automated traffic safety cameras to issue notices of traffic infractions.  Pursuant to this authorization, the respondent city of Mukilteo enacted an ordinance authorizing and setting forth guidelines for the use of automated traffic safety cameras.  Residents of Mukilteo subsequently submitted Initiative 2, which would forbid the city from installing automated traffic safety cameras without voter approval, limit the amount of fines that could be imposed for infractions arising from automated safety camera surveillance, and repeal the ordinance authorizing the use of automated traffic safety cameras, for inclusion on the ballot.  After the Mukilteo City Council directed that the initiative be included on the ballot, Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government petitioned the Superior Court for Snohomish County for a declaratory judgment that Initiative 2 is beyond the scope of the local initiative power and an injunction preventing its inclusion on the ballot. Continue reading →

G-P Gypsum Corporation v. Department of Revenue

by

Docket No. 81995-5 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 35883-2)  Facts: Respondent G-P Gypsum Corporation filed suit against the petitioner Department of Revenue in the Superior Court for Thurston County seeking a refund of use taxes that had been levied against it by the city of Tacoma pursuant to Washington Revised Code §82.14.230 (which permits municipalities to impose use taxes upon the use of natural gas) as a result of its use of natural gas in the process of manufacturing wallboard at its plant in Tacoma. Continue reading →

Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Construction Company

by

Docket No. 81029-0 (from King Case No. 06-2-26048-1)  Facts: The petitioner Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District, the municipal corporation responsible for the ownership and operation of Safeco Field, filed suit against respondent Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Construction Company in the Superior Court for King County Continue reading →