REPRESENTATIVE COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS
Chumbley, et al. v. Snohomish County, et al., 197 Wash. App. 346 (2016). The Washington Court of appeals ruled in favor of our client, reversing trial court’s adverse order, holding that Land Use Petition was timely and County was not preempted from enforcing land disturbing activities and critical areas ordinances. Oral argument: Michael Chait. On the brief: Michael Chait and Bradley Scarp.
McFarland v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 188 Wash. App. 1046 (2015). The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff/petitioner’s motion for new trial; trial court’s exclusion of witnesses not properly designated by plaintiff without first performing full witness exclusion test was harmless error. Oral argument: Kelsey Endres. On the brief: Kelsey Endres and Bradley Scarp.
Pac. Supreme Seafoods, LLC v. HQ Sustainable Mar. Mktg., Inc., 161 Wash. App. 1032 (2011). The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff clients in breach of contract case; contract for transfer of goodwill was an enforceable contract. Oral argument: Robert Green; On the brief: Tom Montgomery and Kelsey Endres.
Veit v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 150 Wash. App. 369, 207 P.3d 1282 (2009). The Washington Court of Appeals held that the Federal Railroad Safety Act preempted plaintiff/petitioner motorist's claim that railroad negligently operated train by traveling at an unreasonable and excessive speed, where train was traveling at the speed limit prescribed under federal regulation at time of collision at crossing and crossing was not designated by the state as an essentially local safety hazard or that the conditions created a specific individual hazard; affirming trial court. Oral argument: Lyn Robbins, Robbins Travis; On the brief: Lyn Robbins, Bradley Scarp, Tom Montgomery, Kelsey Endres.
Toste v. Durham & Bates Agencies, Inc. et al., 116 Wash.App 516, 67 P.3d 506 (2003). The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court summary judgment, holding that Durham & Bates’ claims were simply indirect and improper attempts to recover money from client. On the brief: Tom Montgomery.