Monday, June 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.
Division One of the Court of Appeals filed 3 new published opinions on Monday, June 30, 2014:
1. Holmquist v. King County No. 70500-8 (June 30, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1593 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1593 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW
Brief: When the platter contracted to sell the abutting properties, half of the street was included in the land to be conveyed to each of the purchasers. In 1932, after one of the executory contracts was recorded, the platter gifted the vacated street by quitclaim deed to King County. Because King County was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, each of the contracting individuals gained equitable title to half of the vacated street upon payment of the full contract price. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals holds that the trial court did not err by quieting title to the property in the successors in interest of the contracting individuals.
2. City of Seattle v. Evans No. 67816-7
(June 30, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1592 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1592 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: CRIMINAL LAW
Brief: Seattle's prohibition on carrying a fixed-blade knife in public did not violate defendant's state or federal constitutional right to bear arms.
3. Gabelein v. Island County Diking Dist. No. 1 No. 70527-0 (June 30, 2014) 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1594 (lexis.com)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1594 (Lexis Advance)
Areas: GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PROPERTY AND LAND USE LAW
Brief: Diking District No. 1 of Island County raises money to maintain its dikes and drainage facilities through annual assessments on benefited property owners within the District. Property owners filed suit against the District to challenge the methodology by which the District developed its 2012 benefit assessment roll and calculated the drainage assessment against their property. The trial court ruled that the District failed to properly construe and apply ch. 85.18 RCW in determining the assessment methodology underlying its 2012 benefit assessment roll and granted summary judgment in favor of the property owners. The trial court also awarded attorney fees to the owners based on a finding that the District committed prelitigation misconduct. The Court of Appeals affirms.
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.