Tuesday, October 15, 2013
To view the full text of these opinions, please click here. Lexis.com® subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on lexis.com.
Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 3 new opinions and Division Three filed a new published opinion on Tuesday, October 15, 2013:
1. Tafoya v. State Human Rights Comm'n
(October 15, 2013)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2470
Areas: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
PERSONAL INJURY AND INSURANCE LAW
Brief: The tenant rented a home from the landlords, a husband and wife. After several months of enduring the husband's sexual comments and inappropriate behavior, the tenant filed a complaint with the Washington State Human Rights Commission, alleging that the landlords engaged in sexual harassment and retaliation. The Commission filed a formal complaint against the landlords. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the landlords violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, ch. 49.60 RCW, by engaging in sex discrimination and retaliation. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding that the ALJ correctly applied the law and that the findings are supported by substantial evidence.
2. Powers v. WB Mobile Servs.
(October 15, 2013) 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2469
Brief: The plaintiff filed suit against defendant one, defendant two, and "John Doe One", described as carrying out the role of defendant three, within the three-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff served defendants one and two within 90 days of filing. Under RCW 4.16.170, this tolled the statute of limitations against defendant three. Thus, the plaintiff's claim was timely brought against defendant three under RCW 4.16.170. 3. State v. Lindsey
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2471
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: There are two means of committing first degree trafficking in stolen property under RCW 9A.82.050: (1) facilitating the theft of property so that it can be sold and (2) facilitating the sale of property known to be stolen.
Kilcullen v. Calbom & Schwab, P.S.C.
(October 15, 2013) 2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2465
Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
Brief: Trial court erred in its summary judgment determination that a shareholder loan received from a former partner was due, owing, and must be promptly paid by the law firm because the court relied on its concern over a long, unexplained delay in payment by the law firm and the possibility of a legal basis for immediate liability rather than on a demonstration by the former partner that undisputed facts support relief.
About HeadsUp: Register online to opt-in to receive future issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out or to stop receiving this communication, use this link. For questions or comments, please write: HeadsUp@lexisnexis.com. HeadsUp for Washington is brought to you by LexisNexis®, publisher of the Washington Official Reports.