Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup

Opinions out of Div. II & III as of yesterday.

Div. II

Ameriquest Mortgage v. State

Ameriquest, as part of an investigation by the AGO resulting in settlement, disclosed certain customer loan files. Someone requested those loan files, as well as the AGO attorney work product, under Washington's Public Records Act (PRA). Ameriquest sought to have all of it protected.

The trial court combined the preliminary injunction hearing and permanent injunction trial, instead of separating them out. At issue under the preliminary injunction was the applicability of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), 15 USC 6801, which protected the customer loan files, with Ameriquest arguing preemption of the PRA.

As to the combined hearing, under CR 65(a)(2), if a court is going to combine the preliminary with the permanent, it needs to do so by order, and can't render a final decision at the preliminary injunction hearing. League of Women Voters of Wash. v. King County Records, 133 Wn. App. 374, 382, 135 P.3d 985 (2006).

Turning to the pre-emption issue, the court held that the GLBA preempted, as it was a clear expression to protect customer information. The language of the GLBA specifically pre-empted state law in conflict. The GLBA has a provision specifically precluding reuse of disclosed personal information.

Given the statutory law involved, can't say it was a wrong decision. There, of course, is a lot more in there, but I'll leave that to the PRA nerds ;)

Perez v. Garcia

A Hague Convention case in which the court, after a motion to revise, allowed additional fact finding, introducing facts not available to the commissioner, and reversing the commissioners ruling. This is a no no, and the commissioners ruling will likely stand on remand. If you're a Family Law attorney who deals with immigrant populations, you may want to check it out.

Div. III

In re Detention of C.M.

RCW 71.05.310 permits a 30 day involuntary treatment commitment. C.M. was held for 30 days under MPR 1.2, which allowed additional time when necessary in the interests of justice.

Oddly, the court found MPR 1.2 to be only procedural, though it affects a liberty interest. As is well established, courts handle procedure, and a procedural rule can trump a statute, which the court held it did here.

I can see this going to the Washington Supreme Court.

 Spokane County v. City of Spokane

Keeping with my long standing policy of not blogging land use decisions, land use nerds can click the link and go read. I will give you a brief holding, because it was in the first paragraph. The GMB cannot force the city and county to work together on a  growth plan.

State v. Bainard

Those familiar with the criminal law know that any sentencing enhancements need to be found by a jury. The jury found Bainard guilty of committing the crime (murder) with a deadly weapon. The jury did not specifically find it was a firearm. The court reversed Bainard's 5 year firearm enhancement with directions to sentence only the 2 year firearms enhancement.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.