District Court, E.D. Washington — appointed by George H.W. Bush
In Re Feature Realty Litigation
District Court, E.D. Washington · 2007-07-25 · cited 8×
This case is a consolidated declaratory judgment action in which Feature Realty sought to establish that USF & G owed a duty to indemnify the City of Spokane under an excess liability policy for sums the City agreed to pay Feature in a 2005 settlement over alleged permitting delays for the Canyon Bluffs development. The court granted Feature’s motion for partial summary judgment on allocation of the settlement between covered and non-covered claims, granted in part Feature’s motion on coverage liability, and denied USF & G’s cross-motion asserting that policy conditions barred coverage. Applying Washington insurance law, the court reasoned that the policy’s terms, including its definition of a single “wrongful act” and its coverage for sums the insured is legally obligated to pay, supported indemnity for the portion of the settlement attributable to covered theories of liability, and that USF & G had not shown a failure to satisfy conditions precedent. The ruling addressed only allocation between covered and uncovered liability theories and did not resolve other allocation questions.
business & regulatoryprocedure
United States v. Modica-Linos
District Court, E.D. Washington · 2005-11-10 · cited 1×
In United States v. Modica-Linos, the defendant, a lawful permanent resident deported in 2001 after a 1993 vehicular homicide conviction, faced criminal charges for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, ruling that the prior deportation order could not serve as a valid predicate because the immigration proceedings contained due process defects. Specifically, the Immigration Judge incorrectly informed the defendant he was ineligible for discretionary § 212(c) relief based on the timing of his lawful domicile and misclassified the state conviction as an aggravated felony. The court found the conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence under either the categorical or modified categorical approach, as the record did not establish the required mens rea of recklessness. As a result, the defendant demonstrated both a violation of his rights and prejudice, excusing any failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
immigrationcriminal law
Sowder Ex Rel. Estate of Sowder v. United States
District Court, E.D. Washington · 2005-11-10
The case concerned the estate of Tony Sowder, who died in 1995 leaving specific bequests to his children and the residue to his wife; the estate paid federal estate taxes after the IRS disallowed a marital deduction claim, then sued for a refund. Following a bench trial with extrinsic evidence on the testator's intent, the court found that Sowder intended a marital deduction gift under Washington law (RCW 11.108 et seq.) and that the will's language should be construed to qualify for the unlimited marital deduction under federal tax code. The court therefore ruled for the plaintiff estate, determining that the deduction applied and taxes were overpaid.
taxesfamily lawproperty
Lambert v. Blodgett
District Court, E.D. Washington · 2003-01-17 · cited 2×
This case involves Donald Lambert's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his guilty plea and life sentence for aggravated first degree murder in Washington state court. Lambert claimed his court-appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance by inadequately investigating and advising on the plea, stipulating to juvenile court decline, and operating under a conflict of interest due to sharing an office with his co-defendant's attorney; he also argued the plea was not knowing and voluntary. The district court granted the petition on the ineffective assistance claim related to the plea investigation and advice, as well as the due process claim that the plea was involuntary, while dismissing the other claims with prejudice. It issued a conditional writ requiring the state to release Lambert or vacate the conviction, reinstate his not guilty plea, appoint conflict-free counsel, and schedule a trial within 90 days. The core reasoning rested on evidentiary findings that Lambert did not understand the plea consequences, including that the sentence would be identical whether he pleaded to one count or was convicted of two, and that counsel failed to provide adequate advice or disclose relevant conflicts.
criminal lawprocedure
Cunningham v. City of Wenatchee
District Court, E.D. Washington · 2002-07-10 · cited 3×
This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims brought by plaintiff Henry Cunningham against social worker Dean Reiman and others, alleging misconduct in the investigation, dependency proceedings, and prosecution that followed his daughter's reports of sexual abuse. The court granted Reiman's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against him with prejudice. The ruling rested on absolute or qualified immunity protecting Reiman's conduct in connection with the dependency action and on the plaintiff's failure to present facts sufficient to survive summary judgment on the state-law claims.
criminal lawcivil rightsfamily lawprocedure
City of Spokane v. United National Insurance
District Court, E.D. Washington · 2002-01-16 · cited 11×
The case involved the City of Spokane suing its excess insurance carriers for denying coverage and refusing to defend claims arising from offensive odors emitted by the city's Colbert Compost Facility. The insurers had issued policies containing pollution exclusions, and the dispute centered on whether the odors qualified as pollutants under the policy language and applicable Washington regulations defining air contaminants. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the odors constituted air pollution subject to the exclusions because they were air contaminants regulated by state and local air pollution authorities, thereby relieving the insurers of any duty to defend or indemnify. The ruling relied on the facility's classification as an air contaminant source, statutory definitions of air pollution, and the policies' explicit exclusion of claims involving such emissions.
business & regulatoryenvironment