HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Thursday, August 7, 2014

HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Thursday, August 7, 2014

Thursday, August 7, 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 3 new opinions on Thursday, August 7, 2014. No new published opinions were filed and no opinions were ordered published by Division Three of the Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court:

1. Becerra Becerra v. Expert Janitorial, LLC  
No. 89534-1  
(August 7, 2014)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 603 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. LEXIS 603 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: EMPLOYMENT LAW

Brief: Liability under RCW 49.46.130 of the the Minimum Wage Act may extend to “joint employers” even when there is no formal employment relationship. Summary judgment was improperly granted to the grocery store and subcontractors on the janitors' action for a violation of the Minimum Wage Act because the trial court did not consider all the relevant factors or sufficiently identify why it deemed certain factors to be not relevant in determining whether the grocery store and subcontractors were joint employers.

2. In re Det. of D.W. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.  
No. 90110-4  
(August 7, 2014)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 604 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. LEXIS 604 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND FAMILY LAW

Brief: The involuntary treatment act, ch. 71.05 RCW, and WAC 388-865-0526do not authorize single bed certifications to avoid overcrowding certified evaluation and treatment facilities.

3. State v. Hawkins  
No. 89369-1  
(August 7, 2014)
2014 Wash. LEXIS 602 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. LEXIS 602 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant a new trial under CrR (a)(3) because the newly discovered evidence was material to his defense theory that he was framed, which he was erroneously kept from arguing at trial, and defendant exercised due diligence and still could not have discovered the evidence before trial. The time set for the new trial did not violate defendant's right to a speedy trial because, under CrR 3.3, defendant had to be brought to trial 90 days from when a formal order was entered granting the new trial, not 90 days from when the trial court issued an informal opinion expressing its intention to grant a new trial, and defendant never moved the appellate court under RAP7.2(e) for permission to enter a formal order granting a new trial. 

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.