Thursday, October 10, 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.
The Supreme Court of Washington filed 2 new opinions and Division Three of the Court of Appeals did not file any new published opinions on Thursday, October 10, 2013:
1. Cost Management Services, Inc. v. City of Lakewood
(October 10, 2013)
2013 Wash. LEXIS 851
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Brief: The plaintiff sued the city in superior court on its claim for a refund of taxes paid, asserting a state common law claim of money had and received. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the plaintiff did not owe the taxes it had paid to the city. In addition, in a separate action, the trial court granted the plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the city to respond to the refund claim. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies in this case because none were available: without a response by the city to the plaintiff’s refund claim, there was no other administrative step for the plaintiff to take. In clarification, however, the exhaustion requirement was not vitiated by the fact that the superior court had original jurisdiction over the claim. Instead, in this case, it was vitiated by the city's inaction. The Supreme Court also held that the trial court erred by granting the plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus under the circumstances of this case.
2. State v. Byrd
2013 Wash. LEXIS 852
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: This case concerned the search of an arrestee's purse incident to her arrest. The decisive question was whether the search of the defendant's purse was a search of her person. Because the purse was in her lap when she was arrested, it was an article of her person under the long standing “time of arrest” rule. Neither the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009), nor the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761 (2009), restricts searches of an arrestee's person. If the arrest was lawful, the arresting officer was entitled to search the defendant's person and articles closely associated with her person without showing that the search was motivated by particularized concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation.
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.