Takings
U.S. Supreme Court:
Party presentation rule – Under the party-presentation rule the parties frame the issues for decision, and the court serves as neutral arbiter of matters the parties present. A court violates the party-presentation rule by granting relief on a claim that the defendant never asserted. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Clark v. Sweeney, No. 25-53 (Nov. 24, 2025).
Washington Supreme Court:
Recall Petitions – When a recall petition charges an elected official with violating the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), the petitioner must have knowledge of facts indicating an intent to violate the OPMA. Here, the record indicated that the commissioner attended an executive session where legal counsel was not present, and that therefore the attorney-client privilege exception to the OPMA did not apply. But the record failed to indicate that the petitioner had personal knowledge that the commissioner intended to violate the OPMA. Thus, the recall petition was legally insufficient. In Re Petition for Recall of Commissioner Lisa Olsen, No. 104087-3 (Dec. 4, 2025).
Blake – Individuals with invalidated convictions do not have a right to be reimbursed for community service work performed in lieu of LFOs under the Equal Protection Clause. The individuals alleging Equal Protection violations did not prove disparate treatment because the community service option was not limited to the poor. Further, equal protection claims require “significant state action” which the court found lacking because the community service was performed at nonprofit organizations and not for the State. State v. Danielson, No. 103627-2 (Dec. 11, 2025)
Division I:
Right to Appeal – Ordinarily, entry of a guilty plea that admits the sufficiency of the state’s evidence waives any subsequent challenge to that evidence. And ordinarily, a sentence within the standard range shall not be appealed. RCW 9.94A.585(1). But a defendant may reserve the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress evidence if the state agrees to it when the defendant enters his guilty plea (which the state did in this case). State v. Nielsen, No. 86402-5-I (Nov. 24, 2025, unpublished).
(Editor’s note: A better practice is for the parties agree to a stipulated facts bench trial following the denial of the defendant’s motions to suppress. Then the defendant can appeal the denial of his motions to suppress, and the appeals court will not have to struggle with the reservation of a right to appeal in a guilty plea statement that conflicts with the ordinary rules about what can be appealed.)
Competency – Where the evidence shows that DSHS made significant efforts to provide timely restoration services, but several structural barriers and resource limitations outside of its control left it unable to do so, a trial court abuses its discretion holding DSHS in contempt, as inability to comply is an affirmative defense to contempt. Courts may not impose sanctions for contempt based solely on a violation of the time requirements in RCW 10.77.605. RCW 10.77.605(9). However, courts may impose sanctions for contempt if the order that DSHS violated required DSHS to comply with the time requirements of due process (assuming DSHS is able to comply). State v. DSHS, No. 87697-0-I (Dec. 8, 2025).
Division II:
Evidence – A trial court does not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to refresh a witness’s recollection with an exhibit that the court excluded from evidence as a discovery sanction. A court has wide discretion to determine the sanction for a discovery violation and to determine whether something can be used to refresh a witness’ memory. State v. Newberry, No. 58893-5-II (Nov. 25, 2025, unpublished).
Division III:
Public Records Act (PRA) – A court may sanction a PRA plaintiff for failing to answer questions, or evading questions, during a deposition. An initial five-day response letter does not violate the PRA for failing to provide an estimated response time if the agency sent the letter during the COVID-19 pandemic when the governor paused the operation of RCW 42.56.520(1). An agency does not fail to produce responsive records if the requester asked for all emails that person A sent to the requester, and the agency withholds emails that person B sent to the requester using person A’s email account. The standard of review is de novo for reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant an injunction to protect an agency from harassing records requests from a prisoner, per RCW 42.56.565, if the trial court’s decision was based on a documentary record, not on live witness testimony. Here, the trial court erred in granting the injunction because the evidence of harassment was insufficient to support the injunction. Noyola v. Washington State DOC, No. 39698-3-III (Motion to Publish granted Dec. 9, 2025).
Foreign case of interest:
Takings – A county ordinance was enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic that prohibited all access to privately-owned beaches. County officers, to enforce the ordinance, entered the landowner’s property and excluded the landowners under threat of arrest. This was a “textbook physical taking” that entitled the plaintiffs to just compensation under U.S. Const. amend. V. Alford v. Walton County, No. 21-13999 (Nov. 17, 2025 11th Cir).
Weapons – A steak knife with a rounded tip and a 4 ½ inch blade is not a per se “weapon”. State v. Cortes, 374 Or. 461 (2025).