Thursday, January 30, 2014 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 filed 1 new opinion and Division Three of the Court of Appeals filed 2 new published opinions on Thursday, January 30, 2014:
Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.No. 85583-8(January 30, 2014)2014 Wash. LEXIS 70 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 70 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: PERSONAL INJURY AND INSURANCE LAW
Brief: Recreational use immunity could not be determined as a matter of law because there were disputed issues of fact as to whether the trail served a recreational purpose as opposed to a transportation purpose. To establish entitlement to recreational use immunity, the city must prove that its portion of the I-90 trail is open to the public for outdoor recreation. Whether the city allowed the public to use the trail for purposes of outdoor recreation is a contested factual issue. Because the trier of fact could find that the I-90 trail is open for the public purpose of transportation rather than recreational use, the Court of Appeals correctly held the city was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor.
Court of Appeals:
1. DC Farms, LLC v. Conagra Foods Lamb Weston, Inc.No. 30963-1(January 30, 2014)2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 248 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 248 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW
Brief: The trial court resolved this contract dispute on summary judgment, concluding that a food processor was excused from providing a contractually required notice of default and opportunity to cure because a farmer's breach was incurable. This was error. The processor was required to honor the notice-and-cure provision despite its belief that the breach could not be cured. It could and did seek summary judgment that the farmer suffered no damage because it was incapable of curing the breach, but a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether the farmer remained able to substantially perform.
2. In re Marriage of KimNo. 31426-0(January 30, 2014)2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 247 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 247 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAW
Brief: In a bitterly contested dissolution and custody case following a marriage of 25 years, the father appealed the trial court's order granting the mother’s petition to relocate their children to California. The father contended that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to follow the correct legal standard and erred by disregarding cultural factors in evaluating relocation. He also maintained that the 60 percent/40 percent property division was inequitable and that the trial court erred by failing to include maintenance in the child support worksheets. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err and did not abuse its considerable discretion, and that the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.
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.