New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — No Judicial Notice of Website of Governmental Party Stating Fact Inconsistent With All Evidence before the Government Entity and Contrary to Its Own Findings of Fact (Website as Evidence Creator?)

Download PDF

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 755 (Wash. Ct. App. April 9, 2015):

We address once again the compliance of Spokane County with Washington's intractable Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, this time in the context of a comprehensive plan amendment that rezoned a parcel of land. The reviewing administrative agency, the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB), invalidated the amendment, and the superior court reversed. We reverse in part and affirm in part the decisions of the superior court and remand the case to the GMHB for further proceedings.

***

¶70 UL.2.16 also desires that the Douglass site benefit from good access to major arterials. Douglass' property abuts two roads: Five Mile Road and Waikiki Road. Five Mile Road is not a major arterial. For the first time on appeal, Spokane County argues that Waikiki Road is a major arterial. We must limit our response to the county's argument to the record before the GMHB. Pierce County Sheriff v. Civil Serv. Comm'n for Sheriff's Emp. of Pierce County, 98 Wn.2d 690, 693-94, 658 P.2d 648 (1983). The record defeats the county's argument.

¶71 A hearing examiner addressing Douglass' Redstone application wrote that Waikiki Road is a minor principal arterial. Nevertheless, the examiner's finding is [*49]  not a direct source for this information. Also, the examiner's use of the adjective "principal" rather than "major," lessens the credibility of the finding. "Minor" and "principal" are inconsistent terms.

¶72 The Department of Building and Planning staff report identified Waikiki as a "Minor Urban Arterial." Douglass' letter to the Board of Commissioners labels Waikiki Road as minor arterial. Spokane County's own internally inconsistent finding of fact 23 designates Waikiki Road as minor arterial.

¶73 Spokane County agrees that the record before the Board of Commissioners and the GMHB only labeled Waikiki Road as a minor arterial. Spokane County claims any identification of Waikiki Road as a minor arterial is an unfortunate error and asks this court to take judicial notice of Spokane County's Arterial Road Map, available at www.spokanecounty.org/data/engineers/traffic/arterialroadmap.pdf, which identifies Waikiki as an "urban principal arterial." We deny Spokane County's request.

¶74 ER 201 permits a court to take judicial notice of "adjudicative facts ... not subject to reasonable dispute" in the sense that they are either "(1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or [*50]  (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Spokane County does not isolate which ground or grounds it forwards in asking us to take judicial notice. We do not consider the classification of Waikiki Road's status to be common knowledge within Spokane County, nor does the county argue such. We also know of no decision that recognizes an Internet web page to be a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. In In re Marriage of Meredith, 148 Wn. App. 887, 904, 201 P.3d 1056 (2009), the husband asked this court to take judicial notice of information on internet sites of immigrant rights organizations in order to support his claim of judicial bias. This court reasoned, with double negatives, that information contained on the internet sites were not from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

¶75 We recognize that Spokane County asks us to take judicial notice of information on a government entity website, rather than a website of questionable origin. Nevertheless, we will not take judicial notice of information on a government website that is inconsistent with all evidence before the government entity and contrary to the entity's own findings of fact.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice