REPRESENTATIVE CASES
► Weaver v. Spokane County, 168 Wn. App. 127; 275 P.3d 1184; 2012 Wash. App. LEXIS 1063
OVERVIEW: County did not owe individual duty to decedent where mere intoxication did not bring him into class of individuals protected by Wash. Rev. Code 70.96A.120(2). Legislative intent exception did not apply. Special relationship exception did not apply, and officer did not fail to exercise reasonable care. Rescue doctrine exception did not apply.
► Brown v. Jayne, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24328 (9th Cir. Idaho, Nov. 27, 2012)
OVERVIEW: Defendant officer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff inmate's claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 that the officer used excessive force in handcuffing him during a traffic stop; the use of handcuffs could not be deemed excessive force as handcuffing was standard procedure and there was no claim that handcuffing caused inmate physical injury.
► Miller v. Idaho State Patrol, 150 Idaho 856; 252 P.3d 1274; 2011 Ida. LEXIS 72
OVERVIEW: Court erred in denying police officer's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's action, which claimed under 42 U.S.C.S. §1983 that involuntary catheterization after he was arrested for DUI violated his constitutional rights, because officer was entitled to qualified immunity due to fact that law regarding forced catheterizations was unsettled.
► Delacruz v. Coeur D'Alene Police Dep't, Case No.: CV 05-157-N-EJL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44639
OVERVIEW: Obtained a summary judgment dismissal for our client Idaho State Police and its trooper.
► Hoover v. Farmers Ins. Co., Docket No. 36627, 2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 521, COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, 2010 Ida. App. Unpub. LEXIS 218
OVERVIEW: Obtained order dismissing claims against our client Farmers Insurance Company because of appellant’s failure to complete timely service of process on the company. The order was affirmed.
► Myser v. Spokane County, No. CV-06-24-FVS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88610
OVERVIEW: Obtained summary judgment dismissal of claims against Spokane County and one of its deputies. Subsequently obtained a defense verdict at jury trial for our clients Spokane County Sheriff’s Department and its deputies.
► Worzala v. Bonner County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7494 (D. Idaho Jan. 31, 2007)
OVERVIEW: Obtained summary judgment dismissal of all claims against our clients Idaho State Police and its trooper.
► Greenberg v. Empire Health Servs., o. 24240-4-III , COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE, 2006 Wash. App. LEXIS 726
OVERVIEW: Obtained reversal of summary judgment dismissing our clients’ action against the hospital for damages.
► Basham v. Clark, No. 20742-1-III , COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE, PANEL SEVEN, 2003 Wash. App. LEXIS 153
OVERVIEW: A court, in a driver's personal injury suit, did not err by denying his motion for a mistrial, where the driver opened the door to questions regarding visits to the doctor for conditions unrelated to his car accidents.
► Norton v. Brown, 99 Wn. App. 118; 992 P.2d 1019; 1999 Wash. App. LEXIS 2229
OVERVIEW: Monetary default judgment for plaintiff was set aside because confusion between defendant insured and his insurer about who was responsible to answer summons could constitute mistake for purposes of vacating default.
► Oldham v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 16814-0-III, COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE, PANEL NINE, 1999 Wash. App. LEXIS 357
OVERVIEW: Appellant insured was not entitled to the cost of past medical treatments in her suit against appellee insurer because her medical expert did not have any foundation to testify about the value of the services.
► Golden v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 15906-0-III, COURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON, DIVISION THREE, PANEL SEVEN, 1997 Wash. App. LEXIS 1265
OVERVIEW: Third-party who was injured while attempting to load a boat and trailer onto the insured's vehicle was not entitled to personal injury protection from insurer because third-party was not an "injured person" under the terms of the insurance policy.
► Postlewait Constr. v. Great Am. Ins. Cos., 106 Wn.2d 96; 720 P.2d 805; 1986 Wash. LEXIS 1200
OVERVIEW: Lessor's breach of contract claim for insurance proceeds was dismissed because lessor was not intended to be a third party beneficiary, and consequently, lessor had no standing to bring suit directly against insurer.