The Law Office Of Catherine C. Clark

Schedule A Consultation. Call 206-590-2633 Today

Email
CALL
The Law Office Of Catherine C. Clark

Fighting Your Legal Disputes With An Unwavering Focus On Results

Selected Decisions

The following matters highlight significant appellate litigation involving constitutional law, appellate procedure, governmental liability, property rights, business disputes, technology law, eminent domain, and civil justice issues. Ms. Clark has been involved in nearly 100 appeals in Washington’s appellate courts. The matters below represent a selection of published decisions and significant appellate matters from throughout her career.

Appellate Decisions

  • James Gorman IV v. City of Woodinville, 175 Wn.2d 68, 283 P.3d 1082 (2012), affirming Gorman v. City of Woodinville, 160 Wn. App. 759, 249 P.3d 1040 (2011) (Won a precedent-setting property rights appeal in which the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a city could not defeat an adverse possession claim simply by acquiring title after the claimant’s rights had already accrued. The decision preserved the property owner’s opportunity to prove ownership and remains an important case involving adverse possession and municipal property interests.)
  • Higgins v. Weathers, 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS (February 19, 2025) (Successfully obtained reversal of a trial court order imposing CR 11 sanctions and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals held that sanctions cannot be imposed without findings showing that the litigant failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts or law supporting the challenged filings, and remanded for further proceedings.)
  • Coleman v. Am. Com. Ins., 2025 Wash. App. LEXIS 164 (February 3, 2025) (Won an appeal securing a broader recovery of attorney fees and litigation costs for an insured who prevailed against his insurer under Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court must fully explain any substantial reduction in fee awards and must apply IFCA’s expanded cost-recovery provisions.)
  • Wilmington Savings Fund v. Hopkins, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 1101 (June 3, 2024) (Successfully defended a homeowner against a lender’s attempt to reform a defective deed of trust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of reformation, holding that the lender failed to prove a mutual mistake regarding the parties’ intent and upholding the ruling that the deed of trust was unenforceable due to an insufficient legal description. The court also affirmed the homeowner’s award of attorney fees.)
  • Sherlock v. New Hope Recovery, Division Three of the Court of Appeals, Docket No. 391663, Unpublished Opinion, August 17, 2023 (Successfully obtained reversal of summary judgment in a premises liability action arising from a slip-and-fall on icy commercial property. The Court of Appeals held that the property owner could reasonably anticipate that visitors would encounter known icy conditions in order to access substance abuse treatment services and therefore could not rely on the doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk to avoid liability as a matter of law. The court reinstated the negligence claim against the property owner and remanded for further proceedings.)
  • Little v. Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc., 24 Wn. App. 2d 898, 521 P.3d 298 (2022) (Successfully reversed summary judgment in a premises liability case arising from a slip-and-fall on an icy grocery store parking lot. The Court of Appeals held that a property owner cannot avoid liability based on assumption of the risk when it should reasonably anticipate that customers will encounter known icy conditions while using normal access routes to the business. The case was remanded for further proceedings.)
  • Kelley v. Tonda, 198 Wn. App. 303, 393 P.3d 824 (2017) (Successfully reversed summary judgment in a complex real property dispute involving the interpretation of century-old conveyance documents and competing claims to a public right-of-way. The Court of Appeals held that the parties’ intent could not be resolved as a matter of law because the historical documents and surrounding circumstances supported competing reasonable inferences, requiring a trial.)
  • In re Lynnwood to Condemn, 118 Wn. App. 674, 77 P.3d 378 (2003) (Represented a property owner in a condemnation challenge arising from the Lynnwood Convention Center project. The Court of Appeals held that courts evaluating public use and necessity in eminent domain proceedings must consider the project as a whole and may examine related property acquisitions and financing arrangements when determining whether a proposed taking serves a truly public purpose.)

Amicus Curiae Briefs

  • Aquatherm GMBH v. King County, Washington Supreme Court Cause No. 105286-3. (Ms. Clark filed an amicus brief arguing that Washington Supreme Court should extend the objective-observer framework from Henderson v. Thompson, 200 Wn.2d 417, 518 P.3d 1101 (2022) to claims that gender bias affected the fairness of judicial proceedings, just as the Court has recognized the importance of accounting for implicit bias in the racial-bias context. The brief relies on the Washington Gender and Justice Commission’s findings and other authorities to argue that gender bias can affect criminal defendants, family-law litigants, LGBTQ+ individuals, attorneys, and witnesses. It contends that courts should evaluate gender-bias claims cumulatively rather than dismissing individual incidents as isolated comments, particularly where patterns of differential treatment are alleged. Finally, the brief proposes a narrow rule requiring courts to assess gender-bias claims from the perspective of an informed objective observer who understands that implicit, institutional, and unconscious gender bias can influence adjudication.)
  • Tri-Cities C.A.R.E.S. et al v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, et al., (Washington Supreme Court Docket No. 1048777) (Oral Argument scheduled for June 2026) (submission of amicus curiae brief on behalf of Representative Joe Fitzgibbon of the Washington State Legislature supporting the approval of the Horse Heaven Clean Energy Center in Eastern Washington).
  • Hebert v. Spring Creek Easement Owners Ass’n, 2024 Wash. LEXIS 280, 3 Wn.3d 1006, 2024 WL 2844681 (Washington Supreme Court Docket No. 102863-6) (submission of amicus curiae brief on behalf of King County Assessor John Arthur Wilson advocating for an equitable result in favor of property owners who lost a significant amount of equity in their property based on Division Three’s interpretation of the judgment redemption statute at 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 316, 29 Wn. App. 2d 1042 (Division Three Court of Appeals Docket No. 39382-8).
  • Wolf v. State of Washington, 2 Wn.3d 93, 534 P.3d 822 (2023) (submission of amicus curiae brief on behalf of the National Crime Victim Law Institute asking the court to reverse Division Two of the Court of Appeals in Wolf v. State, 24 Wn. App. 2d 290, 519 P.3d 608 (2022) where it limited the term “act” in RCW 4.16.340(1)(c) to acts of sexual abuse only.  We also argued that the Court should declare that the State’s duty to care for the health, safety and welfare of dependent foster children is non-delegable.). 
  • Barlow v. WSU, 2 Wn.3d 583, 540 P.3d 783 (2024) (submission of amicus curia brief on behalf of the Gonzaga University School of Law Women’s Law Caucus, the Seattle University School of Law Womxn’s Law Caucus and the University of Washington Women’s Law caucus asking the court to apply the doctrine of the emerging adult to civil cases and finding that a duty was owed by WSU to Plaintiff Barlow who was raped during her first month of school).
  • In re Pers. Restraint of Eddie D. Arnold, 190 Wn.2d 136, 410 P.3d 1133 (2018) (Ms. Clark was part of a team of lawyers which filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association regarding the doctrine of stare decisis in Washington State).
  • Selene RMOF II REO Acquisitions II, LLC v. Ward, 189 Wn.2d 72, 399 P.3d 1118 (2017) (Ms. Clark filed an amicus curiae brief on the issue of what constitutes color of title under Washington’s unlawful detainer statutes).and,
  • Freeman v. Gregoire, 171 Wn.2d 316, 256 P.2d 264 (2011) (Ms. Clark filed an amicus curiae brief in this contest over Sound Transit’s use of the I-90 bridge for light rail).