This case arose in a Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding involving Northwest Homes of Chehalis, Inc., where Weyerhaeuser Company held a prejudgment attachment lien on the debtor's real estate stemming from a 1971 state court action for approximately $92,000 in unpaid goods and charges. The referee in bankruptcy, whose order was affirmed by the district court, addressed whether the lien obtained under Washington's attachment statute (R.C.W. 7.12) without prior notice or hearing to the debtor remained enforceable after the bankruptcy filing. The court held the lien unenforceable, ruling the attachment statute unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and parallel state constitutional provisions. The core reasoning drew on Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. and Fuentes v. Shevin, extending those precedents to conclude that prejudgment attachment of real property constitutes a significant interference with ownership rights that requires notice and an opportunity to be heard beforehand. The decision distinguished contrary authority and emphasized that the non-possessory nature of the lien did not eliminate its due process implications.
This case concerned whether large trash containers manufactured and sold by the plaintiff Washington corporation were subject to the 10% federal excise tax on truck bodies under 26 U.S.C. § 4061(a). The IRS assessed taxes on sales of the containers, which the plaintiff paid before suing for a refund after the claims were denied. The court held that the containers qualified as truck bodies because they were specifically designed to attach to truck chassis for highway transport, matched the general configuration of truck bodies, and had a primary purpose of facilitating trash transportation on highways after brief storage periods at commercial sites. It found the containers fell within the scope of Revenue Ruling 61-159 and dismissed the action with prejudice.
This case involved the United States suing several construction trade unions, including Ironworkers Local 86 and others, alleging racial discrimination in their operation of exclusive hiring halls and apprenticeship programs that controlled most employment opportunities in the Seattle area. The court found that the unions' referral priority lists, which favored members with extensive prior work experience within the jurisdiction, resulted in almost no black journeymen or apprentices despite the unions' control over jobs. Based on statistical disparities and the perpetuation of historical exclusion, the court concluded the practices violated Title VII and issued an order requiring the unions to implement affirmative recruitment, admit specified numbers of black trainees annually, modify referral procedures to include minority applicants, and provide ongoing reporting to ensure compliance.
This case consolidated lawsuits brought by the State of Washington, University of Washington, Seattle Community College, and the Port of Seattle against multiple construction trade unions, the Central Contractors Association, and related individuals. The disputes arose from union opposition to the hiring of minority trainees on public construction projects at the university, college, and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, which led to work stoppages, demonstrations, and alleged interference with operations. The court issued findings of fact detailing the parties, the consolidation of cases, and the events at the sites. It then entered a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from striking, picketing, or otherwise interfering with the projects due to the minority trainee program, and later amended the injunction to further restrict mass demonstrations, violence, and interference with public access or airport operations. The core reasoning rested on the evidence of ongoing disruptions and the need to maintain normal construction and public activities pending final resolution of the underlying claims.
This case involved black contractors and workers alleging that several construction trade unions had engaged in racial discrimination by refusing to dispatch or accept minority workers hired under county-mandated affirmative action programs and by calling work stoppages at the Harborview Hospital and King County Administration Building sites. The court found sufficient evidence of a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including the unions' disproportionate underrepresentation of minority members and their response to the hiring of black trainees and apprentices. The court therefore granted a preliminary injunction directing the unions to cease discriminatory practices and work stoppages, implement outreach and training programs for minority applicants, and reinstate the affected workers, while also prohibiting violence by demonstrators. Jurisdiction was proper directly under § 1981 without prior EEOC involvement.
This case involved the conviction of appellant Gregg for landing an aircraft without authorization in a National Forest Wilderness area, in violation of a regulation issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and 16 U.S.C. § 551. The defendant appealed on grounds that the Act required continued permission for established landing sites, did not authorize a total prohibition, and lacked enforceable penalties. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Act imposes a blanket prohibition on aircraft landings except where the Secretary exercises discretion to permit them at pre-existing sites or for administrative/emergency needs, and that violations of the resulting regulations are punishable as crimes under § 551 as confirmed by related statutes like the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act.