Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Litigation

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Thursday, January 8, 2015

Thursday, January 8, 2015

To view the full text of these opinions, please visit: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent or Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either lexis.com or Lexis Advance. 

The Supreme Court of Washington filed 3 new opinions and Division Three of the Court of Appeals filed 1 new published opinion on Thursday, January 8, 2015:

Supreme Court:

1. Association of Washington Spirits and Wine Distributors v. Washington State Liquor Control Board
No. 90561-4
(January 8, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 71 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 71 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Brief: The plain language of Initiative Measure No. 1183, supported by the context in which the language appears and the overall scheme for licensing participants in the spirits industry, enables the Washington State Liquor Control Board to impose the entire shortfall in revenue received by the State on spirits distributors without contribution from spirits distillers. The Board acted within its authority and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Additionally, the Board did not violate the privileges and immunities clause of Wash. Const. art. I, § 12.

2. State v. Condon
No. 88854-0  
(January 8, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 72 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 72 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: In the prosecution for aggravated premeditated first degree murder, there was sufficient evidence of premeditation but the jury should have been instructed on second degree intentional murder as a lesser included offense.

3. Washington Federal v. Harvey / Washington Federal v. Gentry
No. 90078-7
(January 8, 2015)
2015 Wash. LEXIS 70 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. LEXIS 70 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW

Brief: Lender could bring deficiency judgments against the guarantors under RCW 61.24.100(3)(c), (6) because the guarantors did not secure their guaranties by granting deeds of trust and, even if they had, the foreclosed properties were not the properties of the guarantors.

Court of Appeals:

State v. Rubio
No. 31988-1 
(January 8, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 6 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 6 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: Officers from the Spokane police department responded to a domestic disturbance call and found the defendant inside the apartment at the reported address. Police ran a check on the defendant and discovered three outstanding warrants for his arrest. While being booked into jail, methamphetamine was found in the defendant’s sock. The defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. In his appeal, the defendant contended that the officer unlawfully seized him, considering he was merely a witness to the reported disturbance. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s seizure was lawful under the exigent circumstances exception and affirmed the order denying his motion to suppress. 

About HeadsUp: Tell a friend to register online to subscribe to receive issues of the HeadsUp for Washington. To opt-out, unsubscribe 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.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site