Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

An employee of a church who claimed she was harmed by actions of a church's minister brought numerous claims against the church and the minister. At this point in the proceedings, the case involved her negligent retention, negligent supervision, and Title VII sex discrimination claims against the church. The Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment, ruled that these claims were not barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as the trial court had determined. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the negligent retention and supervision claims. "Under the First Amendment, allowing these claims to go forward would violate the First Amendment right of the church to select and supervise its ministers as well as the First Amendment right of a hierarchical religious organization to be free of government involvement in the decisions made by its ecclesiastical tribunals. We remand the Title VII claims for further proceedings." View "Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church" on Justia Law

Parties David Koenig and Thurston County sought review of a decision by the Court of Appeals which held that a special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) evaluation could be disclosed under the Public Records Act (PRA), but a victim impact statement could not. The Court of Appeals found that both the SSOSA evaluation and victim impact statement were investigative records. The court then determined the victim impact statement was exempt under the essential-to-effective-law enforcement prong of the investigative records exemption but concluded the SSOSA evaluation was not exempt. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that neither the SSOSA evaluation nor the victim impact statement are investigative records within the meaning of RCW 42.56.240. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Koenig v. Thurston County" on Justia Law

Kevin Coe challenged a Court of Appeals decision that affirmed his 2008 commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP). The trial court admitted evidence of several unadjudicated sexual offenses, and allowed an expert psychologist to rely on that evidence. In addition to these challenges, Coe claimed his trial counsel was ineffective, that his due process confrontation rights were violated, and that he was entitled to a new trial under the cumulative error doctrine. Finding no reversible error in any of Coe’s claims, the Supreme Court affirmed his commitment. View "In re Det. of Coe" on Justia Law

This interlocutory appeal concerned a discovery dispute involving birth injuries sustained by Jordan Gallinat at Southwest Washington Medical Center in Vancouver, Washington, in 1996. In June 2009, Douglas Fellows, as litigation guardian for Gallinat, filed a complaint alleging medical negligence and corporate negligence against Dr. Daniel Moynihan, Dr. Kathleen Hutchinson, and the Center. The trial court determined that the Center's credentialing, privileging, and personnel records for the doctors were protected from disclosure under the quality improvement privilege (RCW 70.41.200(3)). This case also implicated the applicability of the peer review privilege codified in RCW 4.24.250. After the Court of Appeals denied discretionary review, the Supreme Court court granted petition for review. Because the Court found that the trial court erred in concluding that no other information or records need be disclosed, it remanded the case for in camera review of the records sought by Fellows. View "Fellows v. Moynihan" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice case, Louis Diaz sought a new trial because the trial court admitted evidence that he settled before trial with two of the defendants. Diaz contended that the trial court misapplied RCW 7.70.080 in ruling the evidence admissible. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, concluding that: (1) RCW 7.70.080 permitted only a settling health care provider, not the nonsettling defendants, to introduce evidence of the settlement; (2) to the extent it dealt with settlements, RCW 7.70.080 was superseded by subsequent statutes that treat settlements inconsistently with subsection .080; and (3) the trial court's reading of RCW 7.70.080 would have violated the separation of powers doctrine. However, having found error, the Supreme Court held that the error was harmless because no settlement evidence was admitted at trial, the issue was a minor feature of a fairly lengthy trial, and the court gave a curative instruction at Diaz's request, which was presumed the jury followed. View "Diaz v. Washington" on Justia Law

This case involved the Public Records Act (PRA) and whether, under RCW 42.56.540, the superior court could consider the identity of a public records requester when determining whether to issue an injunction. The superior court ruled it could not consider a requester's identity and scheduled a permanent injunction hearing to determine whether the records were exempt from disclosure. Franklin County sought review of the trial court's ruling regarding identity. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the superior court and held that identity could be considered under RCW 42.56.540 because a superior court's injunctive powers are equitable. It also held that RCW 42.56.565, enacted while review was pending, is retroactive. Having determined that the Court of Appeals improperly reviewed the case when the trial court had not ruled on whether the records were exempt, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for a hearing on the permanent injunction. View "Franklin County Sheriff's Office v. Parmelee" on Justia Law

In 1997, Cecil Davis raped, robbed, and murdered 65-year-old Yoshiko Couch. A jury found him guilty of aggravated first degree murder and unanimously agreed that no mitigating factors warranted leniency, and was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The Court later granted Davis's personal restraint petition (PRP) and reversed his sentence because jurors had seen him in shackles. At the new penalty proceeding, the jury found no mitigating factors warranting leniency and Davis was again sentenced to death. This appeal followed. Finding no reversible error in Davis's second penalty proceeding, the Supreme Court again affirmed Davis's death sentence.

After an amendment to the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), Debra Loeffelholz sued the University of Washington and her superior, James Lukehart (collectively “University”), for discrimination based on sexual orientation. She alleged the sexual-orientation-based discrimination created a hostile work environment based on a series of preamendment acts and one potentially postamendment act. This case presented two related issues on appeal: (1) whether the WLAD amendment applied retroactively and, if not, whether preamendment discriminatory conduct is actionable and (2) whether a single comment made postamendment is a discriminatory act. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the WLAD amendment is not retroactive and that the preamendment conduct was not actionable as it was not unlawful when it occurred. The postamendment, allegedly discriminatory comment is arguably similar enough to the preamendment conduct to survive summary judgment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals only in reversing summary judgment for the University and clarified that the Court of Appeals erred in allowing recovery for preamendment conduct.

Petitioner Charles Weber filed an untimely PRP asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of the case and failed to explore the possibility that he had been misidentified as the perpetrator. Petitioner sought to avoid the procedural time bar by arguing that the actual innocence doctrine, recognized by this court in "In re Personal Restraint of Carter, (263 P.3d 1241 (2011)), be applied to allow review of his constitutional claim. Petitioner supported his innocence claim with new evidence in the form of declarations. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Petitioner's new evidence was insufficient to show he was factually innocent. Accordingly, the Court dismissed his PRP.

Plaintiff Automotive United Trades Organization brought suit against Washington State and its officials, challenging the constitutionality of disbursements the State gives to Indian tribes under fuel tax compacts. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to join indispensable parties, namely the Indian tribes party to the agreements, under CR 19. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the tribes were not indispensable parties under CR 19(b). Although the tribes are necessary parties under CR 19(a) whose joinder was not feasible due to tribal sovereign immunity, equitable considerations allowed this action to proceed in their absence.