Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP

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.

WA Legal Roundup

So, The Prof has been playing catch up with his case load. A partner on vacation can be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, it means I've been neglecting my adoring audience. Its not you, its me.

Anyhow, two new opinions from Division I from Monday and four from Division II.

DIVISION I

PRP of Banks

Banks wanted to avoid his third strike. So he pleaded guilty and agreed to an exceptional sentence. Five years later, he tried to attach the judgment as having had a miscalculated offender score. Unfortunately, such an issue is not on the face of the judgment, making this a collateral attack. Five years is too late for a collateral attack.

 

PRP of Rowland

See above, almost exactly the same issue.

 

DIVISION II

AOL, LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of Revenue

AOL was assessed taxes for a period of a few years. It paid one month of those taxes and then amended its return for that month. It then tried to claim a refund for that period. The court held that to challenge a tax assessment, you have to pay the entire taxes assessed to challenge it, not just the portion which you wish to challenge.

 

Hatfield v. ATD Security Systems, Inc.

PSP was selling security systems through its employee. The employee raped a 14-year old girl that he had met two months prior to the rape, while on a sales call. The court held that there remained a material issue of fact as to whether the failure to conduct a background check on its employee was causally connected to the rape.

 

State v. Jagger

Escape of a sexually violent predator is still a crime. The fact that it criminalizes escape from civil confinement doesn't give weight to Jagger's argument.

 

State v. Combs

Combs argued that all of his prior convictions should count as one point on his offender score. The statute says one point each. I'll give you a wild guess which view held water with the court.

Subscribe in a reader