AI
Washington Supreme Court
Caseload limits – The caseload limits in CrR 3.1 “Standards for Indigent Defense” are mandatory, and courts do not have authority to order defense attorneys to violate them. In this case, the trial court did not impliedly order DPD or its attorneys to violate caseload limits. Instead, the trial court properly ordered that “[b]arring any conflicts, DPD . . . shall continue to ensure an attorney represents [ITA] respondent,” and it correctly left all decisions as to “[w]ho that attorney is and where they come from and what caseloads they maintain” to be resolved by DPD. In the Matter of the Detention of M.E., No. 103252-8 (consolidated with No. 103312-5) (Mar. 19, 2026)
Harassment – The Washington felony harassment statute, RCW 9A.46.020, does not violate the First Amendment, and is constitutional. However, the trial court erred in using a “true threat” jury instruction that did not require the jury to find, at a minimum, that the defendant was aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023). The Court of Appeals, on remand, may find that the erroneous “true threat” instruction was harmless error if, after a thorough examination of the record, it concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same without the error. State v. Calloway, No. 103374-5 (Mar. 19, 2026)
Division III
Torts – County agencies that supervise pretrial electronic home monitoring (EHM) owe a duty to protect third parties from foreseeable harm. Here, a rational trier of fact could find that King County DAJD breached a duty by failing to promptly notify law enforcement that two juveniles, with pending First Degree Robbery charges, cut off their EHM devices and absconded. However, no rational tier of fact could find that the breach proximately caused the murder because it was too speculative whether promptly notifying law enforcement would have prevented the murder in this case. Estate of Jordan Benjamin Brown v. King County, No. 40983-0-III (Mar. 19, 2026, published in part)
AI – Even pro se litigants must ensure that the cases they cite are real cases that plausibly support the proposition for which they are cited. Here, the court suspected the plaintiff used AI for legal research because the plaintiff’s brief contained fabricated quotes that were nowhere to be found in the quoted opinions and cited several nonexistent cases. Richmond v. City of Newport, No. 40954-6-III (Mar 17, 2026, unpublished)
Attorney General Opinion
Public works – Whether a construction project qualifies as a “public work” and is subject to public works procurement and prevailing wage laws is a highly fact-specific inquiry. Relevant factors include whether the project receives substantial government funding, whether it has a public purpose, whether it is constructed on public land, whether a government entity maintains or eventually obtains ownership of the project, and whether the project requires the simultaneous use of public property. AGO 2026 No. 2