Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. 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 in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

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.

Washington Legal Roundup

Yes, I know, I missed about a week. I was debating skipping this one too as I have a summary judgment to work on on one of my cases (opposing). Combine that with the fact that Div. I & III feel the need to send out their opinion notifications at an ungodly hour and you see why I am a little annoyed. However, I have 30 minutes to kill, so I will try to get through the ones that just came out today. I'm afraid you are S.O.L. when it comes to last week's opinions (that does NOT mean statute of limitations).

Div. I

Morris v. Swedish Health Servs.

In shocking news, a notice of intent to sue and request for mediation toll the statute of limitations. Plaintiff had dismissed voluntarily, then sent a 90 day notice and request for mediation 3 days prior to the statute of limitations. In a common sense move, the court held the second notice and request was effective and tolled the statute of limitations.

Heights At Issaquah Ridge Owners Assn.,v. Burton Landscape

If your claim falls within an arbitration agreement, you have to arbitrate it, even the statute of limitations issues.

In Re The Parentage Of M.k.m.r.

Non dad marries mom, puts that he's the dad on the birth certificate. Denies paternity in a timely manner when dissolution happens, but not in the separate paternity action (in which, lo and behold, is is not the father). Mom claims that, because he did not deny paternity within two years in the paternity action, it doesn't count. The court agrees in the paternity action, and establishes non dad as legal dad. Nevermind the fact that Non-dad wasn't served initially in the parentage action. The question came down to whether the Department had standing to challenge paternity due to the presence of a presumed father. The court held it did.

Admittedly, there's a lot in this case, and I don't have the time to sort it out, so go check it out if you're in family law.

Douglas v. Hill

Weird, transferring property to your husband to avoid a judgment against you violates the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Who knew?

There's a joke somewhere in there about Michael Jackson not knowing very obvious things too, but since I'm pressed for time, I'll just leave you with this:

King County v. Rollins

In a win for Plaintiffs, when Tegman removes joint and several, the defendant is not entitled to an instruction to the effect that it not be held liable for intentional torts of others:

Tegman is about joint and several liability. Here, Metro is the only defendant and negligence is the plaintiffs' only theory. To recover at all, plaintiffs had to prove their injuries were proximately caused by Metro's negligence. There is no issue of joint and several liability in this case.

Because there was no risk that defendant would be held liable for anything but its own negligence, there was no need for an instruction on that matter.

State v. Rookhuyzen

If you're out of custody, there is no set time frame for a speedy trial, and arraignment 30 days after filing of the information does not violate.

Well, at least I got through Div. I.

Subscribe in a reader