OUTCOME: new tort law:product disparagement claims
JJ Sandlin established new tort law regarding product disparagement claims in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdictions (western states, including Alaska and Hawaii)
and his personal appearance on... “60 Minutes” in defense of apple growers in the State of Washington gave fruit growers a strong voice.
Criminal defense
“State v. Melendrez”
N/A
OUTCOME: Found Innocent, successfully defended
JJ successfully defended two Hispanic
teenagers falsely accused of mop-handle rape during wrestling team practice, which was scandalized on the Phil Donohue Show.
Criminal defense
U.S.A. v Dr. Rosa Martinez
N/A
OUTCOME: Client, Dr. Martinez Wins
Rosa was found innocent on three charges and eventually cleared.
Criminal defense
U.S.A. v Dr. Rosa Martinez
N/A
OUTCOME: Client, Dr. Martinez Wins
Rosa was found innocent on three charges and eventually cleared.
Appeals
Gary Graham, et ux, et al v. Concord Construction , et al
N/A
OUTCOME: Gary and Nancy Graham, PREVAILED
In January 1995, during construction, severe rainstorms increased
Toppenish Creek's flow. Graham Ranch is located upstream from the
Toppenish Creek cofferdam and fish screen project. On January 31,... Gary
Graham, the owner of Graham Ranch, told Concord to remove the cofferdams.
Concord refused. The water flows in Toppenish Creek breached the north
bank of the creek, flooding Graham Ranch.
Graham sued the Bureau. It settled its claim with the Bureau and
dismissed the federal suit. But in doing so, Graham expressly reserved
'all rights which accrue to them under law to prosecute the civil claims'
against Concord.
Graham then sued Concord. The superior court granted Concord's motion
for summary judgment, concluding that Concord was immune from liability
because it had performed its work in accordance with the Bureau's control.
Application of the collateral estoppel doctrine would work
an injustice on Graham in this case. Graham made it clear during the
federal action and settlement conference that it did not intend to resolve
whatever state causes of action it may have had against Concord. The
federal action did not therefore end in a final judgment on the merits and
application of the doctrine would work an injustice on Graham. Nielson,
135 Wn.2d at 263; Butko, 99 Wn. App. at 545.
Graham is not collaterally estopped from suing Concord.
We reverse the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of Graham's
claims and remand for trial on the merits.