Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney, PS has successfully handled the following recent appeal cases:
Commercial Law
Aspen Grove, LLC et al v. Aer-Ex, Inc. et al, Court of Appeals Div. III,Docket Number: 20793-5-III 07/15/2003. Unpublished (This was a construction law dispute in which the Court of Appeal upheld a trial judgment in favor of our client together with an additional award of prejudgment interest and attorneys fees. The Court upheld the Trial Court award based on construing and interpreting the agreement of the parties including extrinsic evidence and application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to determine the actual complete agreement of the parties. This was notwithstanding the claims of the adverse party that there were two written agreement that should have been considered separately. On appeal the Court of Appeal also awarded our client prejudgment interest and reversed the denial of that award by the Trial Court. In addition the Court of Appeal awarded our client attorneys fees and costs on appeal.)
Ditlefsen v. Wondrack, (Division III Washington Court of Appeals
Cause No. 9564-9-III), decided 1989; unpublished;
Dolsen Leasing Company v. Copeland, (Division III Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 8464-7-III), decided 1988; unpublished
(prevailed in part);
Mann v. Household Finance Corp. 109 Wash.App. 387, 35 P.3d 1186 (2001)
Vintage Valley, Inc. v. Quail Run Vintners,(Division III of Washington Court of Appeals, Cause No. 11200-4-III), decided 1993; unpublished;
Western Farm Service, Inc V Lynn J Olsen, II V Tri-River Chemical Company, Inc v. Keybank National Court of Appeals Div 3, 19730-1-III Title of Case: File Date: 12/05/2002
Zirkle v. Perleberg, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 12232-8-III), decided 1994; unpublished.;
Criminal Law
City of Yakima v Mollett, Court of Appeals Div. III,Docket Number: 20548-7-III 02/13/2003 ( Trial Court may not impose "cash only" bail release conditions under Washington Court Rules. Case preserves the right of access to a surety under Washington Constitution Article I Section 20)
United States v. Harris (9th Cir. 94-30326 8/16/95 Unpublished);
United States v. Negrete-Gonzalez,, 966 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Sanchez-Garcia,, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Nos. 03-30258, 03 30259. Decided July 22, 2005, unpublished.
Sanchez-Garcia v. United States,, U.S.Supreme Court January 2005, 543 U.S. 1115, 125 S.Ct. 1092, 160 L.Ed.2d 1060, 73 USLW 3447 (writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005))
Employment Law
Allen v. Providence Healthcare Systems-Washington, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 19689-2-III), decided 7/24/2001;unpublished (Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment dismissal claims of discrimination and lack of accomodation by a nurse where nurse failed to show satisfactory work performace prior to dismissal and failed to show her claimed disability interfered with ability to perform her job as a nurse);
Blankenship v. McDonald, 176 F.3d 1192, 1195 (9th Cir. 1999)
(Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of bivens claims of a court reporter in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington);
Siekawitch v. Wash. Beef Producers,
58 Wn. App. 454, 793 P.2d 994 (1990),
Wilson v Sunnyside Community Hospital,, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 16648-1-III), decided 8/11/98; unpublished (Upholding a summary judgment of dismissal of allegations of sexual discrimination and constructive discharge from employment);
Woody v Stapp et al.,, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 25909-9-III), decided 5/20/2008; unpublished (Upholding a summary judgment of dismissal of allegations of wrongful termination of an at will employee);
Environmental Law and Agriculture Law
Buchanan v Simplot Feeders Ltd., 134 Wn.2d 673, 952 P.2d 610
(1998) (Nuisance immunity is allowed under Washington's right-to-farm statute only in those instances where nuisance suit arises because of urban encroachment into established agricultural area and such immunity under right-to-farm statute applies to actions seeking damages as well as to those seeking injunctive relief)
;
Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 828 P.2d 549 (1992)(Provision in Shoreline Management Act that private persons may sue on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated is subject to requirements of rule relating to class actions. Demolition or removal of an existing structure is not an "alteration" of the structure and does not constitute a substantial development under the SMA. Attorney fees may be awarded to the landowner and against the Department of Ecology and other private parties under SMA to prevailing defendant; overruling Ritchie v. Markley, 23 Wash.App 569, 597 P.2d 449.);
Hue v. Farmboy, 127 Wn.2d 67 (1995)(The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v) expressly preempts commonlaw claims that are based on an allegation that a product label is required by state law (whether legislative enactments, administrative rules, or common-law duties) to have additional or different warnings than those required by the act.)
Hsieh v. John Hancock Life Insurance, Court of Appeal Division III, Docket 19126-5-III, filed 1/2/2001 unpublished (Ruling affirming summary judgment in water rights litigation.)
Family Law / Domestic Relations
Irwin v. Irwin, 64 Wn. App. 38, 822 P.2d
797 (1992);
In Re Marraige of Herwander, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 19191-5-III), decided 4/2/2002;unpublished;
Healthcare Law
Adams v. Allen, 56 Wn. App. 383, 783 P.2d 635 (1989) (prevailed in part)(Appeal upholding summary judgment dismissal of claims for fraudulent misrepresentation in pain medication prescription case);
Amiri v. Central Family Medicine et al, (Division III Washington Court of Appeals 25329-5-III, decided 2007 unpublished;
Crossland v. Central Washington Hospital, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 9137-6-III), decided 1991; unpublished;
Gunlock/Kynaston v. Kennewick General Hospital,(Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 11793-6-III), decided 1995; unpublished;
Hill v. Kennewick General Hospital, (Division III Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 11094-0-III), decided 1992; unpublished;
Judy v. Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, 106 Wn. 2d 26 (2001);
Nguyen v. Sacred Heart Medical Center, 97 Wn. App. 728, 987 P.2d 634
(1999);
Smith v. Kennewick General Hospital, (Division III Washington Court of Appeals Cause
No. 8719-1-III), decided 1988; unpublished;
Thomas v. Wilfac, Inc., 65 Wn. App. 255,
828 P.2d 597 (1992)(Appeal upholding jury verdict dismissing claims of medical malpractice in connection with alleged Malathion holding that evidence supported finding that physician was not negligent);
Kitherena M. Schliep v Providence et al (Division III Court of Appeals Cause No.22718-9-III decided 11/15/2005 unpublished; (Appeal upholding defense jury verdict)
Whiteside v. Lukson,, 89 Wn.App.109, 947 P.2d 1263 (1997)(Patient brought medical malpractice action against surgeon who removed gallbladder alleging negligence and lack of informed consent. After jury verdict finding surgeon was not negligent but that there was lack of informed consent, the Trial Court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for surgeon on informed consent claim. Patient appealed. The Court of Appeals held that surgeon's duty to obtain informed consent did not require him to disclose his lack of experience in performing particular surgical procedure);
Insurance Law
Cascade Trailer Court v. Beeson, 50 Wn. App. 678, 749 P.2d 761, review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1030 (1988);
Federated Service Insurance v. R.E.W., Inc., 53 Wn. App. 730, 770 P.2d 654 (1989);
Marley Orchards v. Travelers Indemnity, 50 Wn. App. 801, 750 P.2d 1294 (1988);
Moritz v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 48 Wn. App. 521, 739 P.2d 731 (1987);
Perez v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, 85 Wn. App. 760 (Division III, April 1997)(Insureds brought action against automobile insurer asking court to declare their rights and require insurer to name impartial and unbiased person as its nominee to uninsured motorist (UIM) arbitration panel. The Trial Court entered summary judgment in insurer's failure and ordered arbitration to proceed. Insureds appealed, and insurer cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) as general matter, court may not intervene in prearbitration process to disqualify arbitrator-nominee to tripartite panel based on allegation of one party that nominee is partial in that nominee has ongoing professional relationship with party that made appointment, and (2) there was no basis to intervene to remove insurer's nominee, absent any evidence showing him to be corrupt, dishonest, or financially indebtedness, particularly where insureds had actual knowledge of ongoing professional relationship between nominee and insurer);
Robinson v. Pemco Insurance Company, 71 Wn. App. 746, 862 P.2d 614 (1993)( We represented the Mother of vehicle passenger injured in accident in a declaratory judgment action against driver's insurer to determine coverage on behalf of passenger. The trial court entered judgment against insurer, and insurer appealed. The Court of Appeals, held that: (1) title owners' daughter was "owner" of vehicle for purposes of nonowned vehicle clause in driver/insured's automobile policy, providing coverage for other cars used by insured with "permission of the owner," even though insured did not have permission from title owners to drive pickup, and (2) finding that insured had implied, if not express, permission from daughter to drive vehicle at time of accident was supported by substantial evidence);
Municipal / Government Law
Davis v. Ellensburg, 869 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1989);
Hauber v. Yakima County, 147 Wn. 2d 655 (October 2002);
Personal Injury / Death
Danielson v Reinke,, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No.16688-1-III), decided 2/9/99; unpublished (Upholding a defense jury verdict in a double death motor vehicle accident against challenges of jury misconduct and improper jury instructions);
Dunham v. Lake Chelan Water Slides, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals, Cause No. 11160-1-III), decided 1992; unpublished;
Adam Grant, et ux v. Gertrude Boccia, et vir, Court of Appeals Division III 24320-6-III 3/28/2006 ( Court excluded expert medical evidence that fibromyalgia was caused by trauma from a motor vehicle accident on the basis that such a causal link is not generally accepted by the scentific community under the Frye standard);
Johnson v. Coffman, (Division III of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 10137-2-III), decided 1990; unpublished;
Lakes v Vondermehden, Division III Court of Appeals, Docket No. 21342-1-III, Decided 6/5/2003 (Prejudgment interest may not be awarded on medical special damages even though they were admitted by defendant as reasonable and necessary. This decision essentially establishes that medical special damages are alway unliquidated and may not be the basis for prejudgment interest.
Tennyson v. Plum Creek Timber Co., 73 Wn. App. 550, 872 P.2d 524 (1994)(Motorcyclist injured in fall down excavated side of gravel mound brought action against landowner and contractors involved in excavation appealed summary judgment granted by the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) excavation was not "latent" condition within meaning of recreational land use statute and, thus, landowner was immune from liability; (2) immunity provided by recreational land use statute did not apply to contractors; but (3) completion and acceptance doctrine operated as defense to contractors' liability);
Professionals / Licensing
In re Farina, 94 Wn. App. 441, 972 P.2d 531 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999);
Iorio v. Dynasty Land Company, Division III Court of Washington Court of Appeals Cause No. 19782-4-III ,decided 2/12/2002, unpublished; (We sucessfully defended a real estate broker/salesperson who prepared a market analysis report for Dynasty Land Company against claims of a third person Iorio that the report mislead her to loan substantial sums to Dynasty Land Company which she never recovered. The court determined that the Broker/salesperson had no duty to Iorio.)
Taxation
In The Matter Of Intermountain Cleaning Service, Inc. v Employment Security OAH Employment Security Department Docket No 01-2007-16436 / Tax Case ES No: 754537-00-0 ( Employment security asserted that tax premiums were due for officers based on election form that included officers in 1992. Employer successfully argued that course of tax submissions over substantial time period made it clear that tax was not owing.);
Valley Fruit v Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 92 Wn.App. 413, 963 P.2d 886 (1998);