Unfortunately, Ziff Blog is a one-man operation. So when Ziff takes a holiday, Ziff Blog takes a holiday. Memorial Day BBQs, tennis, lunch engagements, tater tots, and the driving range all got in the way of this week’s Monday Morning Mash-up. But have no fear, here it is, just in time to end your week on a high note!
And speaking of notes, here’s the Ziff Blog song of the week: It’s Breaking Into Cars by The Raveonettes!
None of last week’s Court of Appeals cases has anything to do with breaking into cars, since I only do the civil cases, but they are still interesting. And don’t miss the unofficial song of the week: would-be Judge Foley with his campaign rap (performed by his daughter!)
John Woodford Morrison v. State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries (Division 1, March 5, 2012) (published May 21, 2012) — on the constitutionality of imposing fees to appeal administrative citations.
Robin Parrott-Horjes v. Marni G. Rice (Division 1, May 21, 2012) — on the application of the “slayer rule” in cases of self-defense.
MHM&F, LLC v. Edward Pryor, Jr. (Division 1, May 21, 2012) — on whether defects in a summons or failure to join a necessary party deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dee Ann Stiles v. Gerald Kearney (Division 2, February 29, 2012) (published May 22, 2012) — on whether a “great argument” can still result in sanctions, and whether a defendant has a duty to mitigate attorneys’ fees by filing a motion to dismiss frivolous claims.
Charles Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Company (Division 3, May 22, 2012) — on whether the tort of termination in violation of public policy is available where federal law provides for a remedy but that remedy is no longer available to the plaintiff.
A & W Farms v. Raymond E. Cook (Division 3, May 22, 2012) — on whether the failure to conduct supplemental property proceedings in the county where the property is located deprives the trial court in a different county of subject matter jurisdiction over the proceedings.
Also this week, Ziff Blog spilled a lot of digital ink on the Supreme Court’s potential review of a case out of Montana that could result in the reexamination of Citizens United. Some folks have argued to the Supreme Court (and to the press) that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case because of the 11th Amendment. I’m skeptical, and that skepticism is expressed over a serious of posts here, here, here, and here.