Archive for the ‘Judge Chris Quinn-Brintall- Draft concur in result’ Category

WA Legal Roundup: Division II

March 16, 2010

Sprint v. Dep’t of Revenue

The Department conducted an audit of Sprint finding their transmission services for its SprintNet X 25 and Frame Relay network  were “network telephone services” subject to retail sales tax under statutory law. Sprint paid the assessment and filed a refund claim with the superior court. The superior court granted Department’s motion for summary judgment. Sprint appeals.

The Department argues that the statute is clear and that the services fall under “network telephone services.”  Sprint wishes the court to interpret the statute  with the subsequent amendments and taking into account contemporaneous federal regulations.

The court stated that the legislature’s intent in regards to this statue clearly meant to broadly define network telephone service.  Additionally the statute has clear exclusions, which does not include those at issue in this case.

While amendments existed, the court is not in favor of retroactivity.  They held that Sprint did not overcome the strong presumption in favor of prospective application. Thus, they find no err by the trial court and affirm. 

WA Legal Roundup: Division II

February 2, 2010

State of WA v. Alvarez-abrego

Alverez-abrego was caring for his girlfriend’s children.  When the children’s mother returned and noticed that one of the children had a swollen head she took the child to the hospital and the child was diagnosed with a skull fracture.  The mother told the doctor that one of her children had stated that Alverez-abrego had thrown the injured child against a wall.  The trial court allowed this double hearsay to come in through the doctor who was not allowed to state who allegedly threw the child but just that he sustained the injury from being thrown against a wall.  Alverez-Abrego was convicted.  He appeals his conviction, arguing that the court erred in allowing the hearsay within hearsay thereby violating the confrontation clause. 

The appeals court held that the trial court erred in admitting the double hearsay because there was no exception for the child’s statement to the mother since the child was an uninjured declarant.  The appeals court, however, held that the error was harmless because the State had established “overwhelming untainted evidence of Alvarez-Abrego’s guilt.” 

Affirmed.

WA Legal Roundup: Division II

July 1, 2009

In re the Dependency of KB
Ohhh- a dependency case not about taking away or keeping a child!! Appellant Ms. Rioux appeals the trial court’s decision for her request for attorneys fees and sanctions against DSHS, concluding that RCW 13.50.100(10) does not apply in guardianship proceedings, and concluding that civil rules of discovery are the exclusive means for seeking a remedy when DSHS does not provide records. Ms. Rioux informally requested records from DSHS pertaining to herself and her daughter. DSHS never complied. Ms. Rioux must have forgotten to pick up a copy of the civil rules book because the Court held (after deciding to review de novo) that due to not complying with the statutory provisions the Court is affirming the trial court’s ruling denying her request to sanction DSHS and snag her attorney’s fees as well as requiring her to comply with the civil rules of discovery when requesting records from DSHS as opposed to submitting a simple request. (Darn- we are required to submit formal requests for productions when we want to obtain records from the other side who would have thought?)
The Court also ruled, and DSHS eventually conceded, that legislative intent of RCW 13.50.100(10), although fails to state dependency guardianship proceedings as a category applies to them nonetheless because of the procedural similarities between the category of cases listed and a dependency guardianship proceeding. The court ruled that the portion of the statute stating “subject to the rules of discovery in civil cases” interpreted to mean that when a party wants to request records relating to themselves and their children from DSHS they may do so by serving DSHS with interrogatories, requests for production, subpoenas duces tecum, deposition notices, and other discovery allowed under the civil rules.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 477 other followers