Robert Brachtenbach

This case involved approximately 400 asbestos exposure lawsuits against multiple defendants, including Johns-Manville and Unarco, which had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, triggering an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Lower courts had issued stays extending to the bankrupt defendants' codefendants, either automatically or for six months, and the Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether the bankruptcy stay applied to codefendants and whether the bankrupt entities were necessary and indispensable parties under CR 19. The court held that the automatic stay applies only to the debtor and does not extend to codefendants, and that the bankrupt defendants were not indispensable parties because joint tortfeasors can be sued separately under principles of joint and several liability. The decision relied on the text of the Bankruptcy Code, rulings from the bankruptcy courts, and CR 19(b) factors emphasizing that defendants' concerns about multiple litigation are inherent to joint and several liability. The court vacated the stay orders and remanded for further proceedings.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved consolidated personal restraint petitions by inmates serving pre-1984 mandatory life sentences for first-degree murder, who challenged the constitutionality of SHB 1457, a 1989 Washington statute requiring minimum terms roughly conforming to Sentencing Reform Act criteria for parole eligibility determinations. The court held that the statute did not violate the ex post facto clauses when applied to inmates not certified as parolable before its effective date, but did violate those clauses for inmates who had been so certified, and further held that requiring prosecutors to provide updated recommendations inconsistent with prior plea agreements violated due process. Petitioners' equal protection and other due process claims were not sustained. The court therefore denied Powell's petition entirely, granted Halstien's and Forsman's petitions only to remedy the plea-agreement violations, and granted Thompson's petition in full to apply pre-SHB 1457 law to his parole date. The reasoning centered on whether the statutory changes substantively disadvantaged the prisoners by altering parole criteria retroactively, with distinctions based on certification status and contractual plea terms.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether comprehensive general liability insurance policies covered cleanup costs for groundwater contamination caused by leaks from waste disposal pits on property owned by Queen City Farms, where hazardous materials from industrial sources like Boeing had been deposited over decades. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed that coverage existed under one insurer's policies, determined that factual issues remained regarding coverage under the other policies due to interpretations of pollution exclusion clauses, and rejected the insurers' defenses based on alleged misrepresentations by the insured. The core reasoning involved construing ambiguous terms like "sudden" in the pollution exclusions in favor of the insured, finding that the discharges were not expected, and concluding that the insurers had not proven any material misrepresentations.

environmentbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case consolidated appeals from three defendants sentenced above the standard range under Washington's Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) after convictions for serious offenses. The Washington Supreme Court granted review limited to the length of the exceptional sentences and affirmed each one. Defendants argued that courts should be required to state reasons for a sentence's specific length and to apply proportionality tests comparing it to similar cases, average sentences for the crime or more serious crimes, and the midpoint of the standard range. The court rejected these limits, holding that the SRA requires reasons only for imposing an exceptional sentence (not its length), directs consideration of the Act's purposes solely at the trial court level, and restricts appellate review under RCW 9.94A.210(4) to an abuse-of-discretion inquiry into whether the sentence is clearly excessive.

criminal law

In State v. Hobble, the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to attempted burglary and agreed to testify against his co-defendant in exchange for favorable sentencing and no additional charges, refused to answer questions about his prior statement to police during the co-defendant's trial, asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination despite the court's ruling that the plea agreement provided sufficient immunity. The trial court held him in contempt and imposed a 30-day sentence. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the immunity protected the appellant from any jeopardy, making the privilege claim invalid, and that the direct contempt was properly punished summarily without a jury trial under statutory authority and the court's inherent powers.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved neighboring waterfront property owners in Seattle disputing the validity of an easement across one parcel for access and utilities. The Bergs had withdrawn opposition to a short plat subdivision in exchange for the easement from the prior owners of the Ting property, but the written grant described the easement areas only by reference to a future-approved subdivision plat rather than fixed legal descriptions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Tings, ruling the grant failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and was unenforceable. The Court of Appeals reversed on part performance grounds, but the Washington Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that the easement description was too indefinite to meet the statute of frauds and that part performance could not enforce it absent clear and unequivocal evidence of the agreement's terms.

property