Courts Commons^™

Surprises In The Skies: Resolving The Circuit Split On How Courts Should Determine Whether An "Accident" Is "Unexpected Or Unusual" Under The Montreal Convention, Ashley Tang

Washington Law Review

Article 17 of both the Montreal Convention and its predecessor, the Warsaw Convention, imposes liability onto air carriers for certain injuries and damages from “accidents” incurred by passengers during international air carriage. However, neither Convention defines the term “accident.” While the United States Supreme Court opined that, for the purposes of Article 17, an air carrier’s liability “arises only if a passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger,” it did not explain what standards lower courts should employ to discern whether an event is “unexpected or unusual.” In 2004, …

The Finality Of Unmodified Appellate Commissioner Rulings In Washington State, Aurora R. Bearse

Washington Law Review Online

In Washington appellate courts, unelected court commissioners handle most of the motion practice. Some motions are minor and mostly procedural, but other motions touch on the scope of the appeal or its merits. Because commissioners have the power to shape the course of an appeal, the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure allow parties to internally appeal any commissioner decision to a panel of elected judges, via what is called a “motion to modify” under RAP 17.7. If a panel modifies a commissioner’s ruling, the panel’s decision becomes the final decision of the court on that issue. Similarly, multiple opinions recognize …

The Implausibility Standard For Environmental Plaintiffs: The Twiqbal Plausibility Pleading Standard And Affirmative Defenses, Celeste Anquonette Ajayi

Washington Law Review

Environmental plaintiffs often face challenges when pleading their claims. This is due to difficulty in obtaining the particular facts needed to establish causation, and thus liability. In turn, this difficulty inhibits their ability to vindicate their rights. Prior to the shift in pleading standards created by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, often informally referred to as “Twiqbal,” plaintiffs could assert their claims through the simplified notice pleading standard articulated in Conley v. Gibson. This allowed plaintiffs to gain access to discovery, which aided in proving their claims.

The current heightened pleading standard …

Benevolent Exclusion, Anna Offit

Washington Law Review

The American jury system holds the promise of bringing common sense ideas about justice to the enforcement of the law. But its democratizing effect cannot be realized if a segment of the population faces systematic exclusion based on income or wealth. The problem of unequal access to jury service based on socio-economic disparities is a longstanding yet under-studied problem—and one which the uneven fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated. Like race- and sex-based jury discrimination during the peremptory challenge phase of jury selection, the routine dismissal of citizens who face economic hardship excludes not only people but also the …

Judicial Discretion Is Advised: The Lack Of Discretionary Appointments Of Counsel For Children In Washington State Dependency Proceedings, Marisa Forthun

Washington Law Review Online

State agencies initiate dependency proceedings when a child is alleged, often due to parental neglect or abuse, to be a dependent of the state. The state must intervene “[w]hen parents do not comply with [Child Protective Services] requirements, or when the state believes the child is at too great a risk to remain at home even if parents were to comply with services.” Dependency proceedings usually take place in juvenile courts and involve the local state agency, the parents, and the child. After the government files a petition alleging circumstances of neglect or abuse, “[t]he court issues temporary orders regarding …