Washington Supreme Court

The court held that the community custody condition barring access to “sexually exploitive materials” was unconstitutionally vague because it did not give fair notice or protect against arbitrary enforcement.

The court affirmed dismissal of all filed recall charges and upheld sanctions against six filers, concluding that alleged oath-filing defects involving other public servants did not establish legally and factually sufficient charges against the elected officials.

The Washington Supreme Court held that the Washington Privacy Act does not cover the plaintiffs’ searches and clicks on Seattle Children’s Hospital’s public website because each interaction involved one individual and an automated system, not a communication “between two or more individuals.” Applying the statute’s…

The court held that a hospital may not privately communicate with a patient’s nonparty doctors who are former employees, even if their care is implicated in the patient’s claim; the hospital must obtain the patient’s consent or use formal discovery.

The court affirmed the superior court’s judgment invalidating Initiative 2066, but did so solely because the initiative violated Washington’s constitutional single-subject requirement.

The court held that CrR 7.8(b)(5) permits a defendant to seek relief from an order requiring payment of a drug court participation fee, even when no conviction was entered. It nevertheless held that federal due process does not require refunding Peterson’s fee because she voluntarily paid it under an agreement to…

The Washington Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may plead both a vicarious liability claim and a negligent retention claim against a city employer, even when the employer concedes the employee acted within the scope of employment, and reversed the Court of Appeals, remanding for further proceedings.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed orders allowing three recall petitions to proceed on charges alleging retaliation against Port employees, and allowing an additional nondisclosure charge against one commissioner.

The court held that the State established prima facie admissibility of Sliger’s Draeger breath-test results because expert testimony showed that the tiny tobacco strands in his teeth did not affect the test’s reliability or accuracy.

The Washington Supreme Court, en banc, held that when determining whether the Child Relocation Act's rebuttable presumption in favor of relocation applies, courts must calculate residential time under a phased-in parenting plan at the phase in effect when the relocating parent serves notice of intent to relocate, not…

The Washington Supreme Court held that a deadly‑weapon sentencing enhancement is part of the statutory standard‑range sentence and therefore may be waived when a mental‑health sentencing alternative under RCW 9.94A.695 is imposed.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Washington State University owed a duty to Sam Martinez under Restatement (Second) of Torts §315(a) because of its special relationship with the Gamma Chi fraternity, and remanded for further proceedings.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, holding that the Department of Ecology’s rule implementing the agricultural exemption under the Climate Commitment Act was within its statutory authority and not arbitrary or capricious.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment that Meta Platforms violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act, upheld the statute under exacting scrutiny, and held the civil penalty did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s excessive‑fines clause.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Kristopher Korsakas was not completely denied counsel at a critical stage of his prosecution and therefore was not entitled to automatic reversal.

The Washington Supreme Court held that RCW 9A.36.150(1)(b) creates a single crime of interfering with reporting domestic violence, not an alternative means crime, and therefore affirmed Leif Buck’s conviction.

The Washington Supreme Court held that an applicant for vacatur must be released from confinement on all convictions and must present evidence of rehabilitation; it affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

The Washington Supreme Court answered the certified question, holding that the notice requirements of RCW 70.170.060(8)(a) apply to collection agencies that collect on hospital debt.

The Washington Supreme Court held that Brand Insulations’ installation of asbestos‑bearing insulation at the Cherry Point refinery was part of the construction of an improvement on real property and therefore barred by the six‑year construction statute of repose, but the Court affirmed that the Estate’s…

The Washington Supreme Court held that a home‑equity line‑of‑credit (HELOC) agreement is not a negotiable instrument and that, under the Deed of Trust Act, “holder” refers only to the holder of a negotiable instrument; therefore a beneficiary cannot satisfy the statutory proof‑of‑holder requirement for non‑judicial…

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts' orders compelling the State to produce child welfare records sought by former foster children. It held that the records are privileged under RCW 74.04.060(1)(a) but fall within the statute's exception because the lawsuits directly concern the administration of…

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Tim Eyman’s recall petition against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, holding the petition legally insufficient because the emergency clause in ESHB 1296 exempts the challenged statute from referendum, eliminating any mandatory duty violation.

The court answered a certified question by holding that a consumer who buys and keeps the fungible product sought at its advertised price does not allege injury to business or property under the Consumer Protection Act merely because the seller misrepresented the product’s price history.

The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant’s prior sexual assaults under the common scheme or plan exception to ER 404(b), and likewise did not err in its prejudice analysis.

The Washington Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motions to sever the four rape charges, affirming the joint trial. The Court applied the established four‑factor test for severance and found that any prejudice was outweighed by the benefits of joinder…

The Washington Supreme Court held that the state harassment statute is facially constitutional, but the jury instruction on true threats was erroneous because it applied a negligence mens‑rea instead of the recklessness required by Counterman; the court reversed that error and remanded for a harmless‑error analysis.

The Washington Supreme Court held that the caseload limits in the Court Rules’ Standards for Indigent Defense are mandatory, affirmed the trial court’s orders requiring the King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) to provide appointed counsel in involuntary civil commitment cases, and reversed in part and…

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s discretion to give the exercise of judgment jury instruction in a medical malpractice case, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence that the physician’s decision‑making process complied with the applicable standard of care.

The court rejected Monro’s due process challenge to the attorney-discipline burden of proof, held that the hearing officer’s decision permitted meaningful appellate review, and concluded that the challenged findings were supported by substantial evidence apart from harmless errors.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the order approving the recall petition, holding that the charge against Councilmember Lucy Lauser was neither factually nor legally sufficient. The supplied text does not include the court’s analysis explaining those conclusions.

The court affirmed dismissal of the recall petition because none of its five charges satisfied both factual and legal sufficiency: three charges lacked specific factual allegations, while the two amended charges, though factually sufficient, did not establish legally recallable misconduct.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s denial of Amazon’s motion to dismiss, holding that suicide is not a superseding cause as a matter of law and that the plaintiffs’ complaints state a viable negligence claim under the Washington Product Liability Act.

The Washington Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s first service attempt on the City of Sammamish was improper because it was not served on a statutorily designated employee, and that the second service attempt on the city manager was untimely because LUPA’s three‑day tolling provision applies only to decisions…

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed Bennett’s first‑degree assault conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted the unavailable witness’s statements under the rule of completeness (ER 106) and that the admission did not violate Bennett’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right.

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the trial court’s admission of the State’s toxicology expert testimony was error but harmless, and that Ahmed Mohamud Wasuge was not in custody for Miranda purposes.

The court held that police subjected Magana-Arevalo to custodial interrogation on December 1 without Miranda warnings, requiring suppression of those statements. It held that the later December 3 questioning was voluntary and noncustodial and was not tainted by the earlier violation under the federal constitutional…

The Washington Supreme Court held that Lee’s two second degree assault convictions violated double jeopardy because the beating and shooting were part of one uninterrupted course of conduct.

The Washington Supreme Court held that DBIA Services is the functional equivalent of a government agency and therefore subject to the Public Records Act, and that the appropriate standard of review for the trial court’s summary‑judgment ruling on liability is de novo.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the superior court, holding that both recall charges against Commissioner Lisa Olsen were factually and legally insufficient under the Open Public Meetings Act.

The Washington Supreme Court conducted a de novo review of Judge Tracy S. Flood’s alleged misconduct, finding violations of several Code of Judicial Conduct rules and rejecting the Commission’s recommendation of removal.