Docket No. 87740-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 67461-7)
Synopsis: Whether, in light of a 2011 amendment to RCW 7.09.345 that requires the end-of-sentence review committee to assign risk levels to sex offenders (Laws of 2011, ch. 338, § 5), a juvenile court was nonetheless required by RCW 4.24.550(6) to transmit a juvenile offender’s Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative evaluation to the county sheriff for risk classification.
McKown v. Simon Prop. Group Inc.
Docket No. 87722-0 (from Federal Case No. 11-35461)
Synopsis: Whether, in this action brought against a mall owner and a mall security firm by a store employee who was one of those shot during a third party’s criminal rampage, the plaintiff must show that similar violent acts previously occurred on the premises in order to establish that the defendants owed him a duty to protect him from the third party’s criminal acts.
Synopsis: Whether, in this action brought against a mall owner and a mall security firm by a store employee who was one of those shot during a third party’s criminal rampage, the plaintiff must show that similar violent acts previously occurred on the premises in order to establish that the defendants owed him a duty to protect him from the third party’s criminal acts.
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.
Freeman v. State
Docket No. 87267-8 (from Kittitas Case No. 11-2-00195-7)
Synopsis: Does the State’s lease of a portion of I-90 to Sound Transit violate article II, section 40 of the Washington Constitution and RCW 47.12.120?
Synopsis: Does the State’s lease of a portion of I-90 to Sound Transit violate article II, section 40 of the Washington Constitution and RCW 47.12.120?
In re Pers. Restraint of Haghighi
Docket No. 87529-4 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 65130-7)
Synopsis: The trial court admitted evidence at Mr. Haghighi’s trial under the inevitable discovery doctrine. After Mr. Haghighi’s judgment was final, this court rejected the use of the inevitable discovery doctrine in another case. This court must decide whether that case applies retroactively to Mr. Haghighi’s judgment.
Synopsis: The trial court admitted evidence at Mr. Haghighi’s trial under the inevitable discovery doctrine. After Mr. Haghighi’s judgment was final, this court rejected the use of the inevitable discovery doctrine in another case. This court must decide whether that case applies retroactively to Mr. Haghighi’s judgment.
International Marine Underwriters v. ABCD Marine, LLC
Docket No. 87231-7 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 66102-7)
Synopsis: Whether a partner in a general partnership qualifies as a third party to an indemnification agreement between the partnership and another business bringing the personal injuries he suffered while on the job within the coverage provided by the partnership’s comprehensive general liability insurance policy.
Synopsis: Whether a partner in a general partnership qualifies as a third party to an indemnification agreement between the partnership and another business bringing the personal injuries he suffered while on the job within the coverage provided by the partnership’s comprehensive general liability insurance policy.
Youngs v. PeaceHealth
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.