Docket No. 87953-2 (from Pierce Case No. 11-2-10229-2)
Synopsis: Whether a mandatory arbitration clause in a contract between social service professionals and a corporation that provides social and counseling services to members of the military is unconscionable.
Blog Archives
King County Public Hospital No. 2 v. Washington State Department of Health
Docket No. 87574-0 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 66304-6)
Synopsis: Whether the Department of Health properly issued a certificate of need in settlement of an adjudicative hearing on the validity of the department’s original decision denying a certificate, and whether in doing so it properly relied on data collected after the original decision.
Synopsis: Whether the Department of Health properly issued a certificate of need in settlement of an adjudicative hearing on the validity of the department’s original decision denying a certificate, and whether in doing so it properly relied on data collected after the original decision.
Dean v. Fishing Company of Alaska
Docket No. 87407-7 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 66075-6)
Synopsis: Whether in a Jones Act case brought by a maritime worker the trial court correctly applied the summary judgment standard to the worker’s pretrial motion to reinstate maintenance and cure.
Synopsis: Whether in a Jones Act case brought by a maritime worker the trial court correctly applied the summary judgment standard to the worker’s pretrial motion to reinstate maintenance and cure.
King County v. King County
Docket No. 87514-6
Synopsis: Whether a materials processing facility was a valid nonconforming use even though it was established in part by nonpermitted clearing and grading.
Synopsis: Whether a materials processing facility was a valid nonconforming use even though it was established in part by nonpermitted clearing and grading.
State v. Clark
Docket No. 87376-3 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 29508-7)
Synopsis: Whether nontribal police officers were required to obtain a search warrant from a tribal court in order to search the home of a tribal member located on tribal land for evidence of a crime committed on fee land within the boundaries of an Indian reservation.
Synopsis: Whether nontribal police officers were required to obtain a search warrant from a tribal court in order to search the home of a tribal member located on tribal land for evidence of a crime committed on fee land within the boundaries of an Indian reservation.
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Washington State Department of Ecology
Docket No. 87672-0 (from Thurston Case No. 08-2-01403-4)
Synopsis: Whether the Department of Ecology exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in amending the Skagit River Instream Flow Rule to authorize new appropriations of water from Skagit River tributary subbasins for domestic, commercial, municipal, and agricultural uses.
Synopsis: Whether the Department of Ecology exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in amending the Skagit River Instream Flow Rule to authorize new appropriations of water from Skagit River tributary subbasins for domestic, commercial, municipal, and agricultural uses.
State v. Strine
Docket No. 87618-5 (from Spokane Case No. 09-1-02145-8)
Synopsis: Whether a second trial of a defendant on criminal charges violated double jeopardy principles when in the first trial the jury announced it had found the defendant not guilty but the court declared a mistrial after polling the jurors and finding they were not unanimous.
Synopsis: Whether a second trial of a defendant on criminal charges violated double jeopardy principles when in the first trial the jury announced it had found the defendant not guilty but the court declared a mistrial after polling the jurors and finding they were not unanimous.
Department of Transportation v. James River Insurance
Docket No. 87644-4 (from Thurston Case No. 10-2-02005-2)
Synopsis: Whether binding arbitration provisions in “surplus line” liability insurance policies are unenforceable under RCW 48.18.200, which prohibits insurance contracts from depriving state courts of jurisdiction over actions against insurers, and under RCW 48.15.150(1), which requires actions against surplus line insurers to be brought in the superior court of the county where the cause of action arose.
Synopsis: Whether binding arbitration provisions in “surplus line” liability insurance policies are unenforceable under RCW 48.18.200, which prohibits insurance contracts from depriving state courts of jurisdiction over actions against insurers, and under RCW 48.15.150(1), which requires actions against surplus line insurers to be brought in the superior court of the county where the cause of action arose.
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.
Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority
Docket No. 87656-8 (from King Case No. 10-2-26188-5 SEA)
Synopsis: Whether the Seattle Housing Authority violated the Public Records Act when it disclosed previously redacted copies of public housing assistance tenant grievance decisions, and if so, whether the trial court properly ordered the Authority to create new records with fewer redactions, to provide them in electronic format, and to promulgate procedures relating to such record requests.
Synopsis: Whether the Seattle Housing Authority violated the Public Records Act when it disclosed previously redacted copies of public housing assistance tenant grievance decisions, and if so, whether the trial court properly ordered the Authority to create new records with fewer redactions, to provide them in electronic format, and to promulgate procedures relating to such record requests.