Oral Arguments for September 15, 2011 : Supreme Court of ...

The Court began its fall session on September 15 with a full slate of arguments. It will hear arguments once more in September, on the 22nd, and then not again until October 6.

Arguments from the 15th:

Clausen v. Icicle Foods, No. 852006. Whether attorney fees and punitive damages were improperly awarded in a personal injury claim under maritime law.

Seaman Dana Clausen was injured while unloading an Icicle Foods barge, and sued for damages. He won and was awarded compensatory damages, attorney fees and punitive damages. Icicle appealed on two grounds. First, that under both state and federal law the attorney fees should have been decided by the jury, but they were awarded by the judge. Second, that maritime law prevents punitive damages from being more than the compensatory damages, and thus the large punitive damage award to Clausen was improper.

Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, No. 853509. Contradictory decisions were made by appellate courts regarding the meaning of "resulting loss" exceptions in insurance policies. The Supreme Court is asked to clear up the dispute.

Philadelphia was the underwriter for a $12.5 million all-risk insurance policy on Vision One's construction project. Vision was building an elevated concrete walkway when a slab collapsed due to faulty shoring equipment. Philadelphia denied Vision's claim for the expenses related to cleanup and repairs of the site, based on exclusions in the policy for faulty workmanship and design. There is a "resulting loss" exception to these exclusions, however, but the Division One Court of Appeals ruled that the exception did not preserve Vision's coverage. But two weeks later Division Two ruled that such an exception did preserve coverage in a similar situation (Sprague v. Safeco Ins. No. 857946).

Lauer v. Pierce County, No. 851778. Whether a building permit application can fully vest if the application is incomplete or there are facts in dispute.

The Garrisons purchased waterfront property in Gig Harbor in 2002, and decided to build a new residence on the property in 2004. Their building permit application was granted. In 2005 the county's Critical Areas Ordinance was revised with stricter guidelines on buffers for streams. The Garrison's have a drainage stream on their property, and planned to build their new home close to the stream. They applied to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for a variance permit in 2007. At issue is whether their building permit fully vested in 2004, meaning the old CAO rules would still apply, or whether they must meet the new, more stringent requirements. The petitioners claim the Garrisons did not properly label the stream and a nearby trail on the original building permit application, so it shouldn't have vested.

State v. Pannell, No. 854378. Whether time spent in community custody (house arrest) should count as time in custody when calculating maximum sentence lengths.

Daniel Pannell was sentenced to 116 months of confinement and three years of community custody after pleading guilty to first degree incest and four counts of second degree child molestation. The court suspended the sentence and ordered Pannell to serve the equivalent time in community custody.

Later the state asked for the sentence to be reinstated because Pannell violated the terms of his community custody. The court agreed, ordering Pannell to serve his 116 months of custody plus 3 years of community custody. Pannel appealed, arguing that the combined total would violate the statutory maximum of 120 months in confinement. The Superior Court and Court of Appeals sided with the state, finding that community custody is not the equivalent of confinement.

Source: http://www.wasupremecourtblog.com/2011/09/articles/oral-argument/oral-arguments-for-september-15-2011/

ben affleck hp tablet hp veer 7 wonders of the ancient world hp pre 3 stl stl