Ralph O. Olson

The case involved a mother who obtained an Idaho divorce decree awarding her custody of two minor children after personal service on the father in Washington, where he defaulted; after the father took the children to Washington and refused to return them, she filed a habeas corpus petition in Washington to enforce the decree. The trial court denied the petition, concluding the Idaho decree was void for lack of jurisdiction because the mother had not established domicile in Idaho. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the evidence showed the mother had acquired a domicile of choice in Idaho sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the marital status, that any dispute over the six-week residency duration requirement was not jurisdictional and could not support a collateral attack, and that the Idaho decree was therefore valid and entitled the mother to custody of the children.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Scheeler, the defendant was charged with second-degree murder after shooting and killing a man during a nighttime disturbance at a residence, where the defendant claimed self-defense and the victim was later identified as the estranged husband of the homeowner. The jury convicted the defendant of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. The court ruled that the evidence supported submitting manslaughter to the jury, as the defendant's testimony allowed a finding that he used more force than necessary in the absence of justification. It further held that the self-defense jury instruction was proper under the facts and that the inadvertent presence of unadmitted cartridges in the jury room constituted harmless error, affirming the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hanson v. Lincoln First Federal Savings and Loan Association, the plaintiff sued for personal injury damages after slipping and falling on a waxed asphalt-tile floor in the defendant's lobby while walking from a rubber mat toward the counter. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer to the evidence at the close of the plaintiff's case and dismissed the action. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the dismissal, ruling that neither the slip and fall nor the presence of a waxed floor, standing alone, permits an inference of negligence. The court found no evidence that the wax was improperly applied, that any hazardous substance had accumulated, or that the floor posed an unreasonably dangerous condition that the defendant should have anticipated, concluding that any verdict for the plaintiff would rest on speculation.

torts & liability

This consolidated case involved tort actions by landowners against an irrigation district for damages allegedly caused by the district's negligent failure to provide adequate water supplies. The trial court overruled the district's demurrers and entered judgments on verdicts for the plaintiffs. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that the complaints failed to allege compliance with a statute requiring any claim against the district to be presented to its board before suit, and that this material omission was a fatal defect that could not be cured by presumption or evidence. The court reasoned that the statutory requirement is mandatory, constitutes a condition precedent to suit, and serves important public policy purposes such as allowing investigation and possible settlement of claims.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by the executors of Elva M. MacAdams' estate to interpret her 1940 will and two later codicils. The dispute centered on a provision in the second codicil stating that the testatrix 'would like to provide for an education thru high school and music and college for Toni Gavian,' which the trial court held void. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the language was precatory rather than imperative and thus failed to create a valid trust, especially given that the testatrix had already fully disposed of her separate property in an earlier trust and used directive language elsewhere in the documents. The court emphasized that the words expressed a wish, not a command, and were inconsistent with the complete prior disposition of the estate.

property

This case is a condemnation action in which the City of Tacoma sought to acquire private land for constructing city streets and a traffic interchange connecting to state highways, with compensation to be paid from the City Street Fund. The trial court granted an order of public use and necessity, which the landowners challenged via certiorari, arguing that only the state director of highways had authority to condemn property for streets that might serve as state highways. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the city possessed concurrent condemnation power under RCW 8.12.030 for city street purposes and that the 1949 statute governing the City Street Fund authorized such expenditures. The court reasoned that the project was determined by the city to be necessary for its own streets, that any potential future use as a state highway did not divest the city of its authority, and that statutes granting overlapping powers to cities and the state were not inconsistent or subject to implied repeal.

property