Joseph A. Mallery

The case concerned the estate of John Frank Wittman, who had executed a recorded community property agreement with his wife Sadie in 1949 providing that all their property would pass to the survivor upon either's death. After John's death in 1959, his will (which left legacies to several relatives) was challenged by those legatees, who argued that Sadie's earlier will and the couple's actions showed the agreement had been abandoned or rescinded. The trial court found that neither spouse knew of the other's will and that the agreement had never been altered or revoked by mutual consent. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed, holding that a valid rescission requires a meeting of the minds, that unilateral wills do not constitute rescission or repudiation without knowledge and assent, and that the agreement therefore controlled distribution of the property to Sadie.

family lawproperty

In State v. Thompson, an 18-year-old defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder after he was found guilty of killing Mrs. Tussing during an attempted sexual assault. The case centered on whether the trial court properly admitted detailed evidence of the defendant's separate attempted rape of an 11-year-old girl earlier the same evening, which was offered to prove intent and identity in the murder. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was relevant for those limited purposes and that a jury instruction adequately restricted its use. The court reasoned that the probative value outweighed any prejudice, as the facts helped establish the defendant's actions and state of mind near the time and place of the crime.

criminal law

This case concerned whether a worker injured while clearing land for his brother's one-time sale preparation was eligible for workers' compensation benefits under Washington law. The Department of Labor and Industries denied the claim, arguing the land-clearing activity was not a business, but the superior court reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the employer was engaged in extrahazardous work as a business because the operation had a profit motive from the land sale and involved a four-person payroll, satisfying the statutory definitions of employer and workman even though it was not the employer's primary or ongoing activity. The statute requires no minimum duration for an activity to qualify as a business, and the profit-seeking purpose distinguished it from personal or incidental tasks.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a contract dispute where the plaintiffs agreed to transport and erect government surplus buildings for the defendants' radar station construction project in Alaska but failed to complete delivery on time. The court held that the defendants were entitled to judgment on the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and conversion because the contract provided for the passage of title to the buildings as liquidated damages upon non-performance, which occurred automatically after the navigation opening date. Although the defendants breached by taking over the work without proper notice, the plaintiffs failed to prove any actual damages or loss of profits from that breach.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is a follow-up to prior guardianship proceedings involving a minor child whose mother died in Washington while visiting her sister, Mrs. Manlowe; the father, a Hawaii resident, opposed the sister's efforts to become guardian after the child was brought to Washington. Mrs. Manlowe obtained a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice in the guardianship action and removed the child to California, prompting the father's appeal solely on the ground that the trial court should have imposed terms such as costs as a condition of the nonsuit. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impose terms, because the nonsuit allowed Mrs. Manlowe to avoid an adjudication that would have restored custody to the father, which qualified as affirmative relief under Rule 41.08W, and because she had chosen to litigate in Washington rather than Hawaii. The case was remanded for the father to prove his litigation expenses, with a judgment for those amounts to be entered as terms upon the nonsuit order.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Mrs. Cole, who tripped on a wooden 'bull rail' in the parking lot of a supermarket operated by defendants McGhie and owned by defendants Fleming, alleging inadequate lighting and visibility created a hazard. The trial court dismissed the claims against the owners and the jury returned a verdict for the operators; plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Washington Supreme Court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial. The court reasoned that the trial judge's arranged jury view of the scene, which included placing cars to recreate shadows and directing jurors to walk the area after they had heard extensive testimony about the rail, constituted a prejudicial experiment likely to influence the verdict because it did not replicate the plaintiff's unawareness of the obstacle.

torts & liabilityprocedure