Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars
judicial decisions also make that clear. See, e.g., Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444,

450-51, 102 S. Ct. 1874, 72 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1982); Bridgeforth v. Bronson, 584 F.

Supp. 2d 108, 120 (D.D.C. 2008); Carlstrom v. Hanline, 98 Wn. App. 780, 789-90,

990 P.2d 986 (2000). For similar reasons, I agree with the lead opinion that the

city is potentially subject to liability if the State can prove what it has demonstrated

3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside, No. 101205-5 (González, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part)

sufficiently to survive summary judgment. The facts alleged suggest, at best,

deliberate indifference to the statutory and constitutional rights of tenants.

I agree with the lead opinion that injunctive relief is available. “An

injunction is inappropriate if it is absolutely clear that behavior will not reoccur,

but courts must ‘beware of efforts to defeat injunctive relief by protestations of

reform.’” Braam v. State, 150 Wn.2d 689, 709, 81 P.3d 851 (2003) (quoting State

v. Ralph Williams’ N.W. Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 312, 553 P.2d

423 (1976)). A pause in enforcement is not enough to evade an injunction.

I also agree with the lead opinion that material questions of fact preclude

summary judgment on the allegations of housing discrimination. The State has

offered sufficient facts of discrimination to go to the trier of fact.

I part company with the lead opinion, however, on whether the respondents

are potentially liable under RCW 58.18.290 and .580(2). Based on the record here,

I would allow these claims to go forward.

RCW 58.18.290(1) makes it “unlawful for the landlord to remove or exclude