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.
Recent Comments