HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Thursday, July 24, 2014

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Thursday, July 24, 2014

Thursday, July 24, 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 of Washington filed 2 new opinions and Division Three of the Court of Appeals filed no new published opinions on Thursday, July 24, 2014:

Supreme Court:

1. Hundtofte v. Encarnacion  
No. 88036-1 
(July 24, 2014)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 569 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. LEXIS 569 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The renters were sued for unlawful detainer even though they had a valid lease and did nothing to warrant eviction. The case settled. They moved to amend the Superior Court Management Information System indices to replace their full names with their initials in order to hide the fact that they were defendants to the unlawful detainer action, arguing that even though the unlawful detainer action was meritless, they could not obtain sufficient rental housing after prospective landlords learned that they had an unlawful detainer action filed against them. The superior court granted their motion and ordered that the indices be changed to show only their initials. The King County Superior Court Office of Judicial Administration objected and appealed the order. The Court of Appeals reversed. Although the Washington Supreme Court sympathizes with the renters, and other renters in similar situations, the court affirms the Court of Appeals. The public's interest in the open administration of justice prohibits the redaction of the indices in this case.

2. Sorti v. Univ. of Wash.
No. 88323-8 
(July 24, 2014)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 570 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. LEXIS 570 (Lexis Advance)


Brief: The university's promise of an annual two percent raise to meritorious faculty created an enforceable unilateral contract. However, the university's 2009 suspension of that raise did not constitute a breach of that contract because the terms of the contract warned faculty that the policy could be reevaluated in response to changing economic conditions, and the university followed proper procedures to effect a reevaluation. There was no requirement that the university's policy change be delayed until the subsequent academic year. Finally, res judicata did not apply because the prior case and the current case stated different claims based on separate facts and 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.