William Fremming Nielsen

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case concerned a student-athlete with a diagnosed learning disability who sued the NCAA after it declared him academically ineligible to play intercollegiate football, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Washington state antidiscrimination law. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, following a stay to await the Supreme Court's decision in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, and after supplemental briefing on issues including mootness and whether the NCAA constitutes a place of public accommodation. The court granted in part and denied in part both motions but dismissed the ADA claim with prejudice because it had become moot, while dismissing the state-law claim without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. The reasoning focused on the procedural posture after the Martin ruling and the absence of ongoing controversy regarding the plaintiff's eligibility.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved an enrolled Yakama Indian tribe member who operated a logging business on the Yakama Reservation and sought a refund of over $460,000 in federal heavy vehicle use taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 4481 and diesel fuel excise taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 4041, claiming exemption under the 1855 Treaty with the Yakama Nation. The treaty secured the tribe's right to travel public highways freely to transport tribal goods to market. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's, awarding the full refund plus interest. It reasoned that prior Ninth Circuit precedent in Cree v. Flores established the treaty's exemption for such highway-related burdens, and that Congress had not specifically abrogated those rights in the general tax statutes at issue.

taxesfederal powercivil rights

This case involved ten migrant agricultural workers suing their employer Jarnail Singh (doing business as Ram Farms) for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act and wrongful discharge after a 1997 employment period. Plaintiffs prevailed at trial and obtained a judgment exceeding $160,000. After Singh transferred the orchards to a new LLC owned primarily by his sons, plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) to substitute the LLC as the defendant so they could enforce the judgment against assets traceable to the original defendant. The court granted the motion and ordered substitution, reasoning that Rule 25(c) permits joinder or substitution upon a post-judgment transfer of interest, the LLC had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the situation was distinguishable from Nelson v. Adams USA because plaintiffs sought only to reach transferred assets rather than impose new liability.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved ten migrant farm workers who sued agricultural employer Jarnail Singh for nine violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), including failures to disclose employment terms, provide safe housing, maintain payroll records, and post required notices, as well as for wrongful termination under Washington public policy; Singh counterclaimed for trespass. A jury found Singh liable on the AWPA claims and wrongful discharge but rejected the trespass claim. The court awarded each plaintiff $3,400 in statutory damages for the AWPA violations (totaling $34,000), plus adjusted lost wages, emotional distress damages, attorney's fees, and sanctions, applying the statutory maximum of $500 per violation per plaintiff along with factors such as the nature and persistence of the violations, the defendant's culpability, and comparable awards.

labor & employment

This case involved plaintiffs suing on behalf of Spokane County residents who rely on the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction to prevent Burlington Northern Santa Fe from constructing a railroad refueling facility in Idaho based on conditional use permits issued by Kootenai County. Plaintiffs argued that the Surface Transportation Board had exclusive jurisdiction over such facilities under federal law and that local permitting was invalid. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs did not have standing and no federal question jurisdiction existed. The decision rested on the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act's grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the STB over railroad facilities and operations, which preempts state and local authority, with the court concluding that any environmental concerns should be raised before the STB rather than in federal district court.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a college football player with a diagnosed learning disability who was declared academically ineligible under the NCAA's 75/25 Rule limiting the portion of required credits that can be earned in summer sessions. After the NCAA denied his request for a disability-based waiver, the plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction against the NCAA, the PAC-10, and Washington State University, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Washington state antidiscrimination law. The court denied the injunction, holding that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits because NCAA eligibility determinations do not constitute discrimination in a place of public accommodation under the ADA. The court further found that missing three remaining games did not constitute irreparable harm, as the plaintiff could regain eligibility for future seasons by adjusting his course load.

civil rightsprocedure

In Hemmings v. Tidyman's, Inc., two plaintiffs brought claims of gender discrimination, disparate treatment and impact in promotions and compensation, retaliation, and related violations against their employer following a jury trial that awarded them millions in damages including punitives. The court granted the defendant's motion to vacate the punitive damages awards due to lack of legally sufficient evidence under the heightened standard for such claims, while denying motions to overturn the other verdicts and double damages. It denied injunctive relief but awarded attorneys' fees with a multiplier and costs to the plaintiffs based on the prevailing rates and the contingency nature of the representation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Ziegler v. Ziegler, plaintiff Michelle Ziegler brought claims under the federal Gender-Motivated Violence Act (GMVA) along with state-law tort claims against her husband, alleging a decade of spousal violence that included specific post-1994 incidents of assault, imprisonment, and threats. The defendant moved to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings, the constitutionality of the GMVA, statutes of limitations, and the existence of certain state causes of action. The court denied the motion in part after determining that the complaint adequately alleged both a crime of violence and gender motivation under the GMVA's statutory definitions, accepting the facts as true and construing them in the plaintiff's favor while reserving ruling on other issues.

civil rightsfamily lawcriminal lawfederal power

The case involved Sheila Baker suing her employer Kaiser Aluminum for sexual discrimination under Washington state law (R.C.W. 49.60) based on alleged coworker harassment, after her other claims including Title VII were dismissed earlier. The court granted Kaiser's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claim. The core reasoning was that the state law claim was preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA because its resolution would require interpreting the collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedures, anti-discrimination provisions, and management rights, and the claim was also time-barred under federal law.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

This case involved Washington apple growers suing CBS for product disparagement over a '60 Minutes' broadcast that reported on health risks, including cancer, from the pesticide daminozide on apples, based on an EPA assessment. The district court granted CBS's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiffs' motions to strike expert opinions and for partial summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving falsity in a public-concern matter under First Amendment standards from Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, but the broadcast statements were ambiguous, contested, or unprovable as false even under a preponderance standard, and CBS could rely on the government report without independent verification. The court noted that protecting some unprovable speech is required to safeguard speech that matters.

free speechtorts & liability

The case involves plaintiffs challenging the Colville National Forest Plan formulated by the Forest Service and seeking discovery, including depositions, to support a de novo trial on the plan's merits. The court granted the federal defendants' motion for a protective order, ruling that review must be confined to the existing administrative record under the APA's arbitrary and capricious standard in 5 U.S.C. § 706. The core reasoning is that judicial review of agency action examines whether the decision considered relevant factors without clear error of judgment, that the focal point is the record already before the agency rather than new evidence, and that de novo inquiry or supplementation is disfavored absent narrow exceptions such as an incomplete record or bad faith, none of which plaintiffs sufficiently showed in this technical area of forest management.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a public hospital district operating Samaritan Hospital seeking sole community hospital (SCH) designation under Medicare for enhanced reimbursement, which the Health Care Financing Administration denied because the hospital failed to satisfy the inaccessibility criteria in 42 C.F.R. § 412.92(a)(3) due to other nearby hospitals. The hospital challenged the validity of the regulation, claiming it was more restrictive than prior criteria and inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(C)(ii) and congressional intent, and that the Secretary had not articulated a sufficient rationale under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court denied the hospital's summary judgment motion and granted the defendant's, upholding the regulation. The core reasoning was that the Secretary acted within statutory authority to establish uniform, objective criteria for SCH status, and the hospital conceded it did not meet those criteria.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Washington apple growers suing CBS over a '60 Minutes' broadcast that reported on the pesticide Alar as a potential carcinogen, drawing from an NRDC study titled 'Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in our Children’s Food,' which the plaintiffs claimed constituted product disparagement causing financial harm. The court addressed pending motions, including one to dismiss or for summary judgment involving the NRDC and Fenton Communications, while incorporating a prior order resolving other issues. It ultimately dismissed John Does 1-50 from the complaint, reasoning that federal pleading rules do not permit fictitious defendants unless their existence is already known and only their identities need to be determined, which the complaint failed to establish beyond speculation. The opinion also analyzed the NRDC report as a data-driven study focused on regulatory methodology for children's pesticide exposure rather than sensational claims.

free speechtorts & liabilityenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose when a class of Washington apple growers sued CBS's "60 Minutes," local affiliates, NRDC, and Fenton Communications after a 1989 broadcast highlighted health risks from the chemical Alar used on apples, alleging the report caused a sharp drop in sales and prices totaling up to $75 million. The growers claimed products disparagement, arguing the segment was "of and concerning" their apples even though it did not name Washington or specific producers. The court denied the motion to remand to state court, holding that the local affiliates served only as passive conduits without editorial control over the national broadcast and thus bore no liability. On the merits, the court analyzed standing and the "of and concerning" requirement under Washington products disparagement law, distinguishing the facts from cases involving a general chemical ban and noting the difficulties of group libel claims by a large class of growers.

free speechtorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory