Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,730 chars

and eliminate crime hazards, and a commitment by landlords to maintain a crime-free

premises, that does not mean the program itself is harmful but, rather, points to issues

with its enforcement. Whether the CFRHP in Sunnyside is being operated in a

discriminatory manner or in a manner that denies individuals due process is a question for

the superior court. Garcia v. Henley, 190 Wn.2d 539, 544, 415 P.3d 241 (2018) (“This

court generally cannot make findings of fact.”). I agree with the lead opinion that there

are genuine issues of material fact on several issues and that the trier of fact is in the best

position to judge the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence. In re Welfare of

Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 740, 513 P.2d 831 (1973). This court’s general critique of the

CFRHP is not necessary or helpful to reaching a decision on the merits of this dispute.

With these considerations in mind, I respectfully concur.

______________________________________

______________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, J.P.T.

4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al

No. 101205-5

GONZÁLEZ, C.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part) — I agree with

much in the well-written lead opinion. Whether the City of Sunnyside has

implemented its crime-free rental housing program in an unlawful and

discriminatory manner is an issue for trial. But in my view, the trial court also

erred in dismissing claims brought under Washington’s Residential Landlord-

Tenant Act of 1973, ch. 59.18 RCW. Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part

and dissent in part.