Matthew W. Hill

This case involved Margaret Lundeen's claim for death benefits under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act after her husband was killed at work when his truck was struck by a crashing U.S. Navy jet at McChord Air Force Base. Lundeen had settled a separate claim against the United States for $98,816 under the Military Claims Act, after which the Department of Labor and Industries denied her industrial insurance benefits on the ground that the settlement constituted a third-party recovery exceeding the statutory benefits under RCW 51.24.010. The trial court ruled in her favor, holding that the Military Claims Act settlement was not a third-party recovery, did not involve negligence, and did not impair the department's subrogation rights. On appeal, the court reversed, determining that the settlement qualified as a recovery from a third party under the Industrial Insurance Act and that no additional benefits were due because the amount recovered far exceeded the act's entitlements.

labor & employmentfederal powertorts & liability

This case involved King County attempting to collect additional 1961 personal property taxes from four corporations operating restaurants on leased premises, based on approximately $375,000 spent on leasehold improvements such as alterations and additions. The corporations sought and obtained an injunction against the county treasurer's sale of their personal property to satisfy these taxes, arguing the improvements were real property rather than taxable personal property. The trial court granted the injunction on the ground that the improvements were part of the realty, and the Supreme Court affirmed the result while providing a more detailed analysis of Washington tax law. The court reasoned that statutes classifying leaseholds as personal property applied only to leaseholds on publicly owned, tax-exempt land to enable collection of otherwise uncollectible real property taxes; on privately owned land, real property is taxed as a unit to the fee owner, and leaseholds are not separately assessed. The county's statute of limitations defense was deemed waived for failure to plead it affirmatively.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involved property owners in Washington's Garden Springs area whose domestic wells went dry or had reduced water levels after the state excavated a highway cut for an interstate freeway. The state had constructed an impermeable clay dike at significant cost to prevent drainage of the underground water basin, but the effort failed due to unexpected porous or fractured basalt rock allowing water to escape beneath the dike, and the excavation also interfered with recharge. The trial court dismissed the action and held the state not liable for the loss. The Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that percolating groundwater is subject to rules of reasonable use by landowners rather than strict liability or condemnation principles, and the state's actions qualified as reasonable use of its property without creating liability for the resulting harm to the wells.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved an appeal from a conviction under Washington's Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, where the defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying her challenge for cause to a prospective juror who had attended part of her preliminary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the juror's presence at the preliminary hearing required disqualification due to a conclusive presumption of prejudice. The reasoning emphasized that sworn testimony at such hearings is broader than at trial and more likely to create lasting impressions than media accounts, and the juror's statements showed he would require the defense to expend a peremptory challenge to remove him. The court noted a split in authority but adopted the view that actual bias need not be shown when the situation arises infrequently and carries high risk of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by opponents of a proposed highway route challenging the Washington State Highway Commission's adoption of a plan for State Route 12 in Walla Walla County following a public hearing. The superior court affirmed the commission's decision after reviewing only the existing administrative record and declining to admit additional evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that under the Administrative Procedure Act and RCW 47.52.195, judicial review is limited to the record unless procedural irregularities are alleged, and that the commission's findings were not clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious under the applicable standards.

procedure

This case involved a car accident at an intersection in Tacoma where plaintiff Henry Poston, driving eastbound, stopped at a stop sign and flashing red light before attempting a left turn, only to be struck by defendant Thomas Mathers' westbound vehicle, which failed to stop despite the controls. Poston and his family sued for injuries, and the trial court directed a verdict finding Mathers negligent while submitting the question of Poston's contributory negligence to the jury, which denied recovery to the adult plaintiffs but awarded the minor child $500. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to the parents, holding that the jury instructions failed to adequately explain the drivers' respective duties, including that the primary duty to avoid collision rests on the disfavored driver (Mathers) and that a favored driver on an arterial is entitled to rely on the right-of-way while exercising ordinary care. The court reasoned that without proper instructions on Mathers' breached duty, the jury could not rationally evaluate whether Poston's actions constituted contributory negligence.

torts & liability

The case involved a dispute over whether private landowners could fill in portions of their property on Lake Chelan that were seasonally submerged due to water level management by a dam operated under a federal permit. Plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and the public, sought to have the fills removed and claimed damages, arguing interference with public access and navigation rights on the navigable lake. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the fills were impermissible because they obstructed the public's rights to use the navigable waters for boating, fishing, and other recreational purposes at all water levels. The court reasoned that the historical grants and public dedication preserved access rights, and allowing such fills would undermine the navigational and recreational uses of the lake without proper public authority approval.

propertyenvironment

The case concerned a temporary injunction sought by private property owners to prevent the New American Community, Inc. from holding the Sky River Rock Festival in Thurston County, along with a related direction that the county auditor not issue a license for the event. The Washington Supreme Court held that the injunction was invalid because the plaintiffs had not posted the $25,000 bond required by statute (RCW 7.40.080) before a temporary injunction can issue at the request of private parties. Because no valid injunction existed, the court further held that the auditor had a nondiscretionary, ministerial duty under the county ordinance to issue the license upon payment of the required fee. The majority emphasized that the ordinance's language was mandatory and that the licensing decision was not tied to any discretionary determination about potential nuisances.

procedureproperty

This case involves a condemnation action by the State of Washington to acquire the Krugers' property for a highway access road project (the Casino Road Project), where a jury awarded $60,300 based on expert testimony valuing the land partly for potential multi-family use after rezoning. The trial court granted the state's motion for a new trial, finding insufficient evidence of rezoning probability independent of the project and that the jury should not have considered the project's impact on zoning. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while property may be valued considering a reasonable probability of future rezoning, that probability cannot include effects from the condemnation project itself, and the trial court properly corrected its jury instruction error by ordering a retrial. The decision rests on established eminent domain principles limiting valuation to exclude project-induced changes.

propertyprocedure

This case involved property owners in Seattle challenging the city's determination that their neighborhood near the University of Washington was a 'blighted area' under the Urban Renewal Law, seeking to enjoin the city from acquiring the land for redevelopment by the university. The Washington Supreme Court held that the city council's specific findings of blight—based on evidence of structural deficiencies, insanitary conditions, mixed uses, and fire hazards affecting over half the buildings—were supported by substantial evidence and used proper constitutional criteria for public use. The court further ruled that the procedural aspects of the blight hearing did not violate due process, as affected owners could challenge specific takings in future condemnation proceedings. It reversed the trial court's permanent injunction and ordered dismissal of the case.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns the robbery convictions of Sammy Phillips and David Grant for taking a watch, wallet, and money from James Hyneman at gunpoint in Yakima in 1967, based on testimony from Hyneman and two accomplices who described following the victim's truck and later seeing the appellants return with the items. The trial court convicted both defendants of robbery and found Grant to be an habitual criminal. On appeal, the court affirmed Phillips's conviction and sentence in full, holding that the information's charging language was sufficient under the robbery statute, that the pre-June 1967 lineup did not require counsel under prospective Supreme Court precedent, and that impeachment of a witness and the presence of a deputy sheriff were not erroneous. For Grant, the court vacated the habitual criminal finding and remanded for further proceedings because his escape from jail may not have occurred while in custody for a felony, requiring factual determination of whether the parole detainer created qualifying custody. The reasoning centered on statutory interpretation, non-retroactivity of constitutional rules, witness impeachment standards, and the elements of habitual criminal status.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Katherine Louise Huff's appeal from her conviction for first-degree murder of her husband, who was shot in the head, resulting in a life sentence. Huff testified that the shooting occurred accidentally when she tried to grab a gun from her despondent husband, and she sought to introduce expert testimony about her history of epileptic seizures to show lack of intent, but the trial court excluded it. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that there was no evidentiary foundation for the seizure occurring before the shot was fired, making the expert testimony irrelevant to intent or a manslaughter instruction, and that the jury was properly instructed on murder, second-degree murder, or accident. Other claims regarding excluded statements about the victim's state of mind and a special credibility instruction for a witness were also rejected as lacking merit or adequately covered by standard instructions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a construction contract between Lindbrook Construction, Inc. and Mukilteo School District No. 6 for grading and drainage work at an elementary school site. The contractor claimed it encountered subsurface conditions substantially different from those represented in the contract documents, requiring extensive extra work, and sought payment beyond the original $33,617 lump-sum bid. The trial court found in favor of the contractor and awarded $42,834.20, including amounts for the extra work and withheld contract payments. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings of changed conditions, timely notice to the district, and the district's direction to proceed, which triggered the contract's equitable adjustment provisions under Articles 25 and 26.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute over a 75-year lease of Boeing Field from King County to the Boeing Company, specifically whether the county had made a timely written request for rental readjustment for the 1967-1972 period under the lease terms and RCW 14.08.120(5), which would require arbitration if the parties could not agree. Boeing contended that the May 22, 1967 letter from the airport manager did not qualify as a formal written request from the county, so no readjustment was allowed. The court held that the letter, sent with prior approval from county commissioners and providing notice of the intent to seek readjustment, satisfied the request requirement, obligating Boeing to proceed to arbitration after negotiations failed. The court further ruled that the lease could be made under either the 1953 or 1951 statute, which offered alternative rather than conflicting procedures.

business & regulatoryproperty

In State v. Cuzzetto, Eugene Cuzzetto appealed his convictions for negligent homicide, driving under the influence, and reckless driving arising from a 1967 car accident in which a passenger was killed after the vehicle left the road at high speed. The central issue was whether the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Cuzzetto was the driver, which rested on statements he made at the scene to teenagers and police officers. The trial court excluded one pre-Miranda statement to an officer but admitted other statements made after warnings or that were found to be voluntary, and the jury was instructed to consider only freely and voluntarily made admissions. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admissible evidence supported the jury's findings and that no prejudicial error occurred in the handling of the statements or the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Lyons, James Lyons appealed his conviction for grand larceny after currency and packaged foodstuffs matching items stolen from Knight’s Diner were found in his home following a police search. The sole issue on appeal was whether the evidence should have been suppressed because police obtained consent to search without first giving Miranda warnings. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was lawful. It reasoned that Miranda requirements apply only to custodial interrogation to protect against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and do not extend to requests for consent to search under the Fourth Amendment, as multiple other courts had similarly concluded.

criminal lawprocedure

In Fosbre v. State, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the state must pay interest on a tort judgment obtained under the Tort Claims Act (RCW 4.92.090), after the plaintiff recovered a damages award that was affirmed on appeal and the state paid the principal amount into court. The court decided that the state is not liable for interest on such judgments and set aside the supplemental judgment awarding over $17,000 in interest. The core reasoning was that a sovereign state cannot be sued without its consent and is not liable for interest on judgments unless explicitly authorized by statute; the Tort Claims Act equates the state's liability for damages to that of a private person or corporation but contains no reference to interest, so adding such liability would be a legislative rather than judicial function, consistent with prior precedent and administrative practice.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between Paul Shew and four other members of the nonprofit Coon Bay Loafers, Inc., over Shew's claimed interest in the 'Swamp property' that the five had jointly acquired in 1955 through the corporation. After Shew withdrew from the corporation in 1958, the remaining members revived the purchase, later sold the property (along with corporate assets) for $151,000 in 1961, and allocated proceeds among themselves without including Shew. Shew sued for an accounting and his proportionate share, while the defendants contended he had abandoned any interest. The court focused on whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of abandonment, examining letters and communications from 1958 and 1959 that discussed stopping payments and writing off the property as a failed investment.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an appeal from a robbery conviction in Washington state, where the defendant raised claims of constitutional violations including warrantless arrest, unlawful search and seizure, improperly obtained confessions, denial of counsel, and denial of a speedy trial. The court found the arrest, search, seizure, and confession claims meritless because the defendant was promptly identified by the victim after a description was broadcast, Miranda warnings were provided multiple times before statements were made, and these issues had been rejected in a pretrial hearing. On the speedy trial claim involving a delay of more than nine months, the court concluded there was no violation because initial delays stemmed from the defendant's medical hospitalizations and other incarceration, later delays resulted from his own habeas corpus petitions filed in multiple courts without any request for trial, and no prejudice was shown from the timing; the conviction was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

Bosko Engineering sued its insurer Lloyd’s and agent Pitts & Still after the insurer refused to defend or pay claims arising from excavated material that slid onto railroad property during a city sewer project, causing track damage, cleanup costs, and ongoing stabilization needs. The policy was a broad-form property damage liability policy covering losses from the insured’s operations. The trial court held that the claims were covered and that the insurer breached the duty to defend, awarding Bosko most of the settlement amount plus partial attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed coverage and the breach finding because the policy language encompassed the damage and required defense of suits within its scope, but modified the judgment to award the full reasonable attorney fees incurred in the underlying litigation.

business & regulatorytorts & liability