Tom Chambers

The case involved a civil lawsuit between Business Services of America II, Inc. and WaferTech LLC stemming from a 1998 construction contract dispute, in which most claims were dismissed but one lien foreclosure claim was remanded for trial in 2004. After the case remained largely inactive for years, BSA noted it for trial in June 2009, prompting WaferTech to move for dismissal for want of prosecution under CR 41(b)(1). The trial court granted dismissal, but the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The court held that CR 41(b)(1) mandates that an action shall not be dismissed if noted for trial before the dismissal hearing, with the rule's plain language limiting the trial court's discretion except in cases of other unacceptable litigation practices beyond mere inaction.

procedure

The case concerned whether the city of Auburn could prosecute Dustin Gauntt in municipal court for violating state statutes on marijuana possession and drug paraphernalia when the city had not adopted those statutes by reference into its municipal code. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the charges, holding that municipalities lack authority to enforce state criminal laws without first incorporating them into local ordinances. The court's reasoning centered on the limited jurisdiction of municipal courts, which is confined to violations of local penal ordinances or properly adopted state laws, and on statutory provisions such as RCW 35.21.180 and RCW 39.34.180 that require explicit adoption or interlocal agreements for cities to handle such prosecutions. The opinion reviewed the historical division of authority between counties and municipalities and rejected arguments that cities could directly charge under state law without these steps.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether plaintiffs in a personal injury lawsuit arising from a car collision could recover attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250-.300 by making settlement offers of under $10,000 before a trial de novo after losing in mandatory arbitration. The Washington Supreme Court held that the statute requires such offers to be made at least 10 days before the initial hearing—whether that is an arbitration or a trial—and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to fees because their offers came after the arbitration decision. The court reasoned that the two attorney fee schemes must be harmonized, with RCW 4.84.250-.300 designed to encourage prompt settlement of small claims before the original proceeding begins, while RCW 7.06.050-.060 separately penalizes unsuccessful appeals from arbitration. The Court of Appeals decision denying fees was affirmed.

procedure

This case concerned a personal restraint petition filed by Joshua Dean Scott challenging his 2004 sentence, which included firearm enhancements based on a jury's deadly weapon special verdict rather than an explicit firearm finding, following the U.S. Supreme Court's Blakely decision and subsequent Washington rulings. The court addressed two issues: whether verdict forms could be consulted to assess if a judgment and sentence is valid on its face (thus subject to the one-year limit on collateral attacks under RCW 10.73.090) and whether the rule from State v. Recuenco III applies retroactively to final cases. It concluded that courts may review verdict forms to determine facial validity but that Recuenco III established a new rule that does not apply retroactively, rendering the petition time-barred. The core reasoning rested on the statutory time bar for collateral challenges and precedents limiting retroactivity of sentencing rule changes, leading the court to reverse the Court of Appeals and dismiss the petition.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved a class action by Kevin Dolan and other employees of nonprofit public defender organizations contracted by King County to provide indigent criminal defense services. The plaintiffs sought enrollment in the state's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), arguing that the organizations had become so controlled by the county that their workers qualified as county employees under RCW 41.40.010(12). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of the class, holding that the employees were entitled to PERS benefits. The court reasoned that decades of evolving contractual requirements, budgetary oversight, operational directives, and termination provisions had transformed the organizations into agencies of the county rather than independent contractors. It applied both statutory definitions and common law principles of control and dependence to reach this conclusion.

labor & employmentcriminal law

In State v. Robinson, the defendant entered a guilty plea to reduced charges after plea negotiations that focused on his offender score and sentencing range, based on his reasonable but mistaken belief that his pre-1994 juvenile convictions had washed out and would not be included. After learning that changes in Washington sentencing law meant those convictions would increase his offender score and sentencing range, Robinson moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Robinson's misunderstanding rendered the plea unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision was within its sound discretion under the circumstances and reinstated the order allowing withdrawal of the plea. The core reasoning centered on the defendant's reasonable reliance on prior advice about his criminal history and the focus of negotiations on sentencing consequences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Julie Anderson suing her former employer Akzo Nobel for negligence after her son Dalton was born with birth defects she attributed to in utero exposure to organic solvents while mixing paint at work without adequate respiratory protection, as well as for wrongful discharge after she filed safety complaints with state regulators. The Washington Supreme Court held that the Frye standard for admitting expert testimony on causation requires only general acceptance of the expert's underlying theory and methodology in the relevant scientific community, not acceptance of the specific causal link between a particular exposure and a particular defect. It affirmed dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim because the statutory remedy under RCW 49.17.160 preempts a common-law public-policy claim, and it upheld the trial court's denial of summary judgment on comparative fault. The court reversed the exclusion of Anderson's causation experts and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned David Oppelt, who was accused in 2001 of sexually abusing his stepdaughter but was not charged until 2007 after an unexplained police delay in forwarding the investigation report. Oppelt moved to dismiss the child molestation charges, claiming the preaccusatorial delay violated due process and CrR 8.3(b) due to prejudice from lost evidence, such as a witness's faded memory of a specific lotion. The trial court found some prejudice and negligent delay but denied dismissal after balancing factors, and Oppelt was convicted. On review, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that due process requires a three-pronged inquiry into prejudice, the reasons for delay, and whether prosecution offends fundamental conceptions of justice; negligent delay does not automatically require dismissal, nor is it categorically insufficient to violate due process, and the lower court applied the correct test.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Washington resident who was injured while working on a construction project in Idaho and sued the Washington-based general contractor in Washington superior court for negligence after receiving workers' compensation benefits from Idaho. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed. The court held that Washington superior courts have subject matter jurisdiction over tort claims between state residents under the state constitution, regardless of where the injury occurred. It explained that any effect from the Idaho workers' compensation determination on the availability of a tort claim was a matter of claim or issue preclusion rather than jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including on choice of law.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved Kevin Monday's convictions for first-degree murder and two counts of first-degree assault arising from a 2006 shooting in Seattle's Pioneer Square, captured on video and supported by witness identifications and other evidence. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that prosecutorial misconduct deprived Monday of a fair trial. The core reasoning was that the prosecutor repeatedly invoked a supposed "code on the streets" discouraging cooperation with police and deliberately mispronounced "police" as "poleese" in a manner that injected racial prejudice into the proceedings, particularly given the reluctance of several witnesses; this improper tactic, combined with other vouching statements, tainted the trial despite curative efforts by the trial court.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from a 2004 collapse of a digester dome at Spokane's wastewater treatment plant that killed one worker and injured two others; the survivors and estate sued engineering firm CH2M Hill and its on-site manager for negligence in recommending and overseeing pipe modifications without adequate analysis or communication to plant staff. The trial court found CH2M liable, rejecting its claim of immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act (RCW 51.24.035) and determining that the firm owed a duty of care, breached it, and proximately caused the injuries. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that CH2M's on-call consulting services did not qualify for statutory immunity, that the challenged findings of fact were supported, and that no errors occurred regarding duty, causation, or superseding cause.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved a recall petition filed by Robin Farris against Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer Dale Washam, alleging six charges of misconduct such as retaliating against employees who filed complaints, grossly wasting public funds by pursuing investigations of his predecessor, failing to cooperate with discrimination and retaliation probes, and violating his oath of office. The superior court found five charges sufficient after reviewing evidence from three independent investigations and corrected the ballot synopsis accordingly. Washam appealed, arguing defects in verification, service, and the legal sufficiency of the charges. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that an amended petition satisfied the oath requirement under RCW 29A.56.110, service was adequate, and the charges met the standards for misfeasance, malfeasance, and oath violations based on county code provisions and statutes prohibiting retaliation and waste of funds.

electionslabor & employmentcriminal lawprocedure

In State v. Williams, the defendant was convicted of first-degree theft, making a false statement to a public servant, and obstructing a law enforcement officer after driving away from a tire dealership without paying and providing a false name to police officers investigating the incident. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the obstruction conviction, holding that the relevant statute requires some conduct beyond mere false statements to support a conviction. The court's reasoning centered on statutory construction, drawing from legislative history and prior case law that interpreted similar obstruction statutes narrowly to prevent issues with criminalizing protected speech alone.

criminal law

The case concerned Qualcomm's OmniTRACS system, which provides trucking companies with vehicle location data, driver performance information, and messaging capabilities through a combination of hardware, software, and data transmission services. The Washington Department of Revenue classified the service component as a "network telephone service" subject to higher retailing B&O tax and retail sales tax, while Qualcomm argued it qualified as a lower-taxed "information service." The Supreme Court of Washington adopted a "primary purpose of the purchaser" test for mixed services involving data collection, processing, and transmission. It held that the information services classification applied because the buyers' primary goal was obtaining the processed data rather than mere transmission. The court reversed the Court of Appeals on this basis.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

Lamtec Corporation, a New Jersey-based manufacturer of insulation products, sold over $9 million worth of goods to Washington customers between 1997 and 2003 and sent sales employees to visit major customers in the state two or three times per year to answer questions and maintain its market, though it had no permanent presence there. The Washington Department of Revenue assessed Business and Occupation tax on these sales, which Lamtec paid under protest before suing for a refund on the ground that its activities lacked sufficient nexus under the federal commerce clause. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Department, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed again, concluding that the regular visits by Lamtec's employees created the required substantial nexus with Washington.

business & regulatorytaxes

Lamtec Corporation, a New Jersey-based manufacturer of insulation products, sold over $9 million worth of goods to Washington customers between 1997 and 2003 without maintaining any permanent facilities or employees in the state. The company regularly sent sales representatives to visit major customers two or three times a year to answer questions and maintain its market presence. The Washington Department of Revenue assessed Business and Occupation tax on these sales, which Lamtec paid under protest and then challenged as violating the commerce clause due to insufficient nexus. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the lower courts' rulings that Lamtec's activities established a substantial nexus with the state, making the tax applicable under federal constitutional standards.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Schultz, the defendant was convicted of drug possession after police entered her apartment without a warrant following a report of a verbal domestic argument and discovered evidence of narcotics. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the conviction and suppressed the evidence. The court held that the warrantless entry was not justified under the emergency aid exception, reasoning that while the potential for domestic violence may be considered in that analysis, the state failed to meet the exception's requirements in this case. The court further held that the defendant's mere acquiescence to the officers' entry did not constitute consent under the state constitution's privacy protections for the home.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Patel, the defendant was convicted of attempted second degree rape of a child after engaging in an online conversation with a police detective posing as a 13-year-old girl and agreeing to meet for sex, only to be arrested upon arrival. Patel moved to dismiss and later for arrest of judgment, arguing that the state could not prove an actual underage victim existed, which he claimed was required for the attempt charge given that child rape is a strict liability offense. The trial court and Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a conviction for attempted child rape is permissible when the alleged victim is fictitious because the attempt statute incorporates the criminal result of the underlying offense without requiring proof of all elements of the completed crime or an actual victim. The court clarified its prior precedent and explained that the defendant's intent to engage in the prohibited conduct suffices for attempt liability.

criminal law

This case concerned a challenge to 2003 Washington legislation (SESSHB 1338) that amended municipal water law by defining certain nongovernmental water suppliers as municipal and applying that definition retroactively, in response to a 1998 Supreme Court ruling holding that private water rights generally vest only upon beneficial use rather than infrastructure construction. Indian tribes, environmental groups, and individuals sued state officials, arguing the amendments violated separation of powers by overriding the prior judicial decision and facially violated due process. The Washington Supreme Court held that the amendments were constitutional, concluding the legislature acted within its authority to classify and protect municipal water rights—which receive distinct treatment and exemptions from relinquishment—and that any effects on other rights holders were collateral rather than direct deprivations. The court reversed in part and affirmed in part on related issues.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

Nathaniel Ish was convicted of second degree felony murder for the beating death of his girlfriend. The case centered on the use of testimony from Ish's jail cellmate, who had entered a plea agreement with prosecutors that promised a reduced sentence in exchange for truthful testimony against Ish. The court examined whether the prosecutor's reference to the agreement's truthful-testimony requirement during direct examination amounted to improper vouching for the witness's credibility. It held that introducing this aspect of the agreement in the state's case in chief was error, but determined the error was harmless given the other evidence in the record. The conviction was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure