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: The Finale (Hopefully)

Yes, that's right. I will try, in this one post, to catch all the way up with present day. Can he do it? We'll see.

WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT


Polygon Apartment Homes settled with a homeowners association for construction defects. They sought indemnification against subcontractors, but didn't include one subcontractor who was in Chapter 7. After they got SJ'd, they attempted to amend the complaint to include the previously omitted subcontractor. The trial court denied, but, since a complaint against that contractor was not time-barred, denying a motion to amend was improper.

A suit was initiated against the Campbell's for an easement not in the public records. Their title insurance had an exclusion for things that it couldn't have been aware of because they weren't in public records. The exclusion holds, and there was no duty to defend.


I might have to create a new style nerd for mortgage-backed securities. This opinion details when mortgage-backed securities are susceptible to B&O, and when they are not. I will leave you new style nerds to figure that out.


Home invasion robbery. Victim died before trial. Police testified as to what victim said said to them. The state tried to introduce them as excited utterances. However, whether or not something falls within a hearsay exception doesn't quite satisfy the confrontation clause. The testimonial statements were a violation and were not harmless.


Always assess your client before you try to get a guardianship assigned. Also abide by the goals of the representation. Eugster will be suspended for 18 months, a significant departure from the Board's recommendation of disbarment. 

The noteworthy part of this case is really the need to state the obvious: "Due to the way this case has been framed, we find it necessary to discuss the facts in some detail in order to properly resolve the issues presented." 

For those that aren't aware, attorney discipline cases are notorious for being very fact-specific to begin with. Discussing the facts in some detail is the norm, not the exception thereto.


In a biggy for criminal defendants, you get the right to DNA testing if it could yield significant new information. If it was available to test at trial, and you didn't, but the test itself is a new one not available at time of trial, you still get the right.


The jury found four aggrevating factors on a premeditated murder. Life without parole was appropriate. Affirmed.


Ames contended his sanctions for being a bad doc needed expert opinion. Problem is, experts did actually testify, they just weren't other doctors. The sanctions stand.


Strict liability stands in WPLA cases, even if the cause of action arose prior to adoption of strict liability.

Okay...so maybe I didn't get through all the opinions...but I am officially caught up with the supreme court. Off to bed I go!

There is big news coming this week...very big. 


Subscribe in a reader