HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, February 18, 2014

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Tuesday, February 18, 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.


Division One of the Court of Appeals filed 4 new published opinions and announced the publication of 1 additional opinion on Tuesday, February 18, 2014:

1. State v. Hecht 
No. 71059-1
(February 18, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 374 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 374 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: A prosecutor commits prejudicial misconduct by using graphics in closing argument that show the defendant's face with the word "GUILTY" superimposed in red.

2. Wash. Fed. v. Gentry
No. 70004-9
(February 18, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 379 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 379 (Lexis Advance)

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

Brief:  RCW 61.24.100(10) does not preclude the action for a deficiency judgment against the guarantors of the commercial loans. The trustees' sales under the deed of trust securing the loans do not bar the action. Moreover, the action is not barred by the limitations stated in RCW 61.24.100(3)(a) and (b).

3. Norton v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
No. 68531-7
(February 18, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 366 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 366 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LAW; COURTS

Brief: The trial court abused its discretion in requiring a bank to produce documents containing information about how the bank conducts internal monitoring and investigations to detect fraud and money laundering because such information is privileged from discovery under federal law.

4. State v. Moore
No. 69766-8 
(February 18, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 367 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 367 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The "to convict" instruction informed the jury that, if it found each element proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it had a duty to convict. This instruction does not violate a defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial. It neither misstates the law nor invades the province of the jury.

5. Canal Station N. Condo. Ass'n v. Ballard Leary Phase II, LP 
No. 69500-2
(filed December 23, 2013; ordered published February 3, 2014)
2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2896 (lexis.com)

2013 Wash. App. LEXIS 2896 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: COURTS; PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW

Brief: The condominium owners association sued the contractor and several other defendants for alleged construction defects. Before filing an answer, the contractor filed a CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss two of the association's claims for lack of standing and two other claims as premature. When the trial court denied the motion, the contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to RCW 64.55.100 of the Washington Condominium Act. The trial court issued an order striking the arbitration demand, finding that the contractor waived arbitration. The Court of Appeals hold that the motion under CR 12(b)(6) did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate and that arbitration was timely demanded as to the claims against the statutory declarants. Arbitration was properly denied as to the remaining claims and parties to the lawsuit.

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.