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

Litigation

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

To view the full text of these opinions, please click here. Lexis.com® and Lexis Advance® subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on lexis.com and Lexis Advance.

Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 4 new published opinions and announced the publication of 1 additional opinion and Division Three filed 3 new published opinions on Tuesday, April 28, 2015:

Division Two:

1. Avnet, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue
No. 45108-5
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 922 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 922 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW; GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Brief: The business and occupation tax (B&O) statute and regulations subject both categories of the foreign company's Washington-bound sales to the B&O tax consistently with the commerce clause.

2. N.L. v. Bethel Sch. Dist.
No. 45832-2
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 918 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 918 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: PERSONAL INJURY AND INSURANCE LAW

Brief: Court erred in granting summary judgment to the school district on the negligence claim because the district owed a duty of reasonable care to protect the student and monitor the registered sex offender student, and genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the district breached its duty and whether that breach was a proximate cause of the student's injury.

3. Estate of Bremer v. Walker
No. 45480-7
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 920 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 920 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW; COURTS; PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW

Brief: The trial court commissioner had authority under RCW 6.32.190 to compel the defendant to appear in Pierce County for supplemental proceedings examinations even though he resided in King County because the defendant did not produce evidence that he did not do business in Pierce County. However, the orders relating to the initial supplemental proceedings examination are invalid because the defendant was not served with a court order directing him to appear at a new time that opposing counsel selected for the examination.

4. In re Pers. Restraint of Crow
No. 42926-8
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 921 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 921 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The exceptional sentence was improper because the evidence was insufficient to support the good Samaritan aggravator under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(w) when the alleged victim's act of reporting the assault to the police over a week after it occurred, while admirable, did not make the alleged victim a good Samaritan; further, the court explicitly considering good time credits when sentencing defendant.

5. Boyd v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.
No. 45174-3
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 187 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 187 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: EMPLOYMENT LAW

Brief: In the retaliation case, the employee presented substantial evidence of adverse employment actions and a causal connection to support a verdict in his favor. The trial court correctly allowed the employee to rely on the cat's paw theory where he presented evidence that a supervisor's animus was a substantial factor in the employer's decision to discipline him.

Division Three:

1. State v. Polk
No. 31935-1
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 926 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 926 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: Double jeopardy considerations require dismissal of three of the four convictions of second degree possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. There was no authority to support the imposition of the no contact order with the nontestifying witness who had contact with defendant when she was a minor.

2. State v. I.B.
No. 31736-6
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 927 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 927 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The trial court's suppression of the juvenile's custodial statements was proper because his shaking his head was an unequivocal invocation of the right to remain silent. Nothing in the circumstances leading up to his invocation rendered his head movement ambiguous. The unchallenged findings established that the officer read the juvenile his Miranda rights and that the juvenile understood his rights. Moreover, the officer's question was not investigatory, but directly concerned the juvenile's right to remain silent and the juvenile's affirmative conduct unambiguously signaled his desire for the questioning to cease.

3. In re Termination of M.J.
No. 32321-8
(April 28, 2015)
2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 934 (lexis.com)

2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 934 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAW

Brief: The termination of the incarcerated mother's parental rights was subject to reversal and remand because it was unclear whether the trial court properly applied the 2013 amendments to RCW 13.34.145)(5)(5) and RCW 13.34.180(1)(f) concerning incarcerated parents.

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.