Why Are the Records of the Cases and Judgements of the High Court Important

West v. Steve Vermillion City of Puyallup, 196 Wn. App. 627 (8/11/2016) – Vermillion, a city councillor, maintained a private computer on which he managed some private affairs as well as some elements related to his position on the city council. West requested the “communications received or posted” through a personal website and associated email account operated by the City Council member. Vermillion refused to provide documents found at his home, on his personal computer and in his personal email account, citing his privacy rights under state and federal constitutions. West filed a lawsuit and the court ordered Vermillion to provide the documents that were public. On appeal, the Court upheld this request, holding that it was reasonable to require the submission of emails from a personal email account that met the definition of a public record and to require the submission of a bona fide affidavit certifying the appropriateness of the search for the requested records. The court ruled that the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Washington Constitution do not provide for an individual right to privacy in public records in the personal email account. In reaching its decision, the court relied on the recent case of Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (2015), which involved recordings found on a private mobile phone.

Records, even if they are on a private device, may be subject to disclosure if the individual “is acting within the scope of his or her employment,” in which case the actions “are equivalent to the actions of [the organization] itself.” If records “relate to the conduct of government or the exercise of a governmental or proprietary function” and are “prepared, possessed, used or retained by an organization,” they may be public records subject to disclosure. There is no constitutional right to data protection on public documents. The possible disclosure of public documents does not violate the right to organise. Adams v. Department of Corrections, 189 Wn. App. 925 (9/1/2015) – Adams, an inmate, requested that the records be kept in the prison`s central file. His request included his “criminal conviction file,” a set of files containing state patrol and FBI criminal records, such as “rap sheets.” Although Adams received records, some information, especially his rap sheets, was removed from the record package as exempt. The exemption protocol did not contain very specific grounds for exemptions. Adams sued, and the trial court found that the records had been unlawfully withheld and that the detention was in “bad faith,” allowing for damages.

Although the Supreme Court can hear an appeal on any point of law, provided it has jurisdiction, it does not generally hold a trial. Rather, the Court`s task is to interpret the meaning of a statute, to decide whether a statute is relevant to a particular situation, or to decide how a statute is to be applied. Lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court jurisprudence when making decisions. Belo. Mgmt. Servs. v. Click! Network, 184 Wn.

App. 649 (25.11.2014) – This decision deals with the exception to “other laws”, RCW 42.56.070(1). The court held that a retransmission agreement entered into by Tacoma`s own cable system was not exempt from trade as a trade secret under the Uniform State Trade Secrets Act, Chapter 19.108 RCW. The Court also rejected the argument that the agreement was exempt under federal laws and regulations. Zinc v. City of Mesa, 4 Wn. App. 112 (6/14/2018) – The Zinks sued the City of Mesa when it failed to provide certain documents requested under the Public Records Act. After an earlier review by the Court of Appeal, the trial court awarded the Zinks fines of $352,954, plus attorneys` fees and costs.

The factors considered by the court in determining the amount of the penalty included the size and financial capacity of the city, as well as the amount of penalty required to act as a deterrent to future violations. The Zinks appealed the arbitration award, arguing, among other things, that a 2011 amendment to the law removing one floor per day should not be applied retroactively and that the court did not have the discretion to reduce the penalty due to the jurisdiction`s limited size and resources. The City cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court had abused its discretion by imposing a penalty greater than 100% of the unfettered annual tax revenue from the city`s general fund, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court`s conclusion that an MRSC memorandum should have alerted the city to the inappropriateness of some of its redactions of documents. White v. City of Lakewood, 194 Wn. App. 778 (05/25/2016) – White requested three documents related to the issuance of a search warrant. In response to the initial request, the City responded that the records were exempt because the investigation was ongoing. As for the second application, the city denied a similar rejection, although it did release some documents and suggested that the case would be considered closed unless White argued otherwise.

With respect to the third request, the City submitted the same request for exemption, although it submitted files 365 days later. White filed a lawsuit. At trial, the city argued that the appeals were time-barred because they were not filed within a year. The court agreed, but awarded a penalty of $10 per day for delaying the response to the third request. On appeal, the court overturned the trial court`s decision on the first application, acknowledging that no ongoing investigation was ongoing at the time the application was made. The court found that the second application was time-barred because the lawsuit was not filed within one year of the city`s response to the application by submitting certain documents. Regarding the third request, the court ruled against the city as there was no ongoing investigation and sent the case back to the trial court for a recalculation of the sentence. Once a criminal or civil case has been heard, it can be challenged in a higher court – a federal appeals court or a state appeals court. The litigant who appeals, called an “appellant”, must prove that the court of first instance or the administrative authority made an error of law that affected the outcome of the case. An appellate court makes its decision based on the case record prepared by the court of first instance or the lower court – it does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. It may also review findings of fact made by the court of first instance or the trial authority, but can normally only set aside the outcome of a trial on objective grounds if the findings were “manifestly erroneous”.

If an accused is found not guilty in criminal proceedings, he or she may not be retried on the basis of the same facts. How long do you argue before the Supreme Court? Typically, each party has 30 minutes of reasoning to convince judges that their interpretation of the law is correct. Almost all the cases judges hear are reviews of the decisions of other courts – there are no jurors or witnesses. Judges consider the records given to them, including the decisions of the lower courts for each stage of a case, the evidence and arguments presented to them in their final decision. Realistic court simulations focus on Bill of Rights cases with juvenile scenarios. Faulkner v. Dept. for Corrections, 183 Wn. App. 93 (8/192014) – In considering whether an inmate is entitled to damages under RCW 42.56.565 because of an authority`s bad faith reaction, the court concluded that “.