Volume 121 — Washington Reports, Second Series

<bold>[1] Judgment — Summary Judgment — Review — In General.</bold> On review of a summary judgment, an appellate court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court in applying the standard set forth in CR 56(c): It considers only the evidence and issues called to the attention of the trial court, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. <bold>[2] Administrative Law — Administrative Decision — Statutory</bold> <bold>Bases — Legitimate and Illegitimate — Effect.</bold> An administrative agency exercising its decision-making authority is not required to support its decision with a rationale completely untainted by factors not authorized by statute; if the agency has acted legitimately on otherwise sufficient statutory grounds, the decision will not be nullified by the presence of erroneous or improper grounds. <bold>[3] Appeal — Review — Issues Not Raised in Trial Court — Issues</bold> <bold>of Fact.</bold> An appellate court will not consider factual allegations that were not raised before the trial court. <bold>[4] Statutes — Construction — Legislative Intent — Statutory</bold> <bold>Language — In General.</bold> Statutes are construed to effectuate legislative intent; in ascertaining legislative intent, the language of the statute should be examined first.<page_number>Page 153</page_number> <bold>[5] Public Employment — Compensation — Personnel Board Changes —</bold> <bold>Modification by Office of Financial Management.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>43.88.160</cross_reference>, which authorizes the director of the Office of Financial Management to amend or alter salary and classification plans and changes thereto for their fiscal impact, and RCW <cross_reference>41.06.150</cross_reference>(17), which states that salary and classification plans adopted or revised by the State Personnel Board are subject to approval by the OFM director, the director of OFM is permitted to reject a change made to the state salary schedule by the State Personnel Board. <bold>[6] Statutes — Construction — Attorney General Opinion —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> Attorney General opinions are not controlling on the Supreme Court and are entitled to lesser deference when they involve issues of statutory construction. <bold>[7] Statutes — Construction — Final Authority — Supreme Court.</bold> The Supreme Court is the final authority on the proper construction of a statute. <bold>[8] Statutes — Repeal — By Implication — Test.</bold> A later statutory enactment implicitly repeals an earlier statute only if (1) the later act covers the entire subject matter of the earlier act, (2) the later act is complete in itself, and (3) either (a) an intent to supersede the earlier act is evident in the later act or (b) the two acts are so clearly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other that, after being construed fairly and reasonably, they cannot be reconciled and both be given effect. DOLLIVER and MADSEN, JJ., did not participate in the disposition of this case.

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Insanity — Proof — Expert Testimony — Related</bold> <bold>to Legal Standard.</bold> Expert testimony which defines a legal standard for assessing the sanity of a criminal defendant is not proper. However, expert testimony relating to the defendant's disorder, how it affects persons suffering from it, and how this may be related to a determination of sanity or insanity under the <italic>M'Naghten</italic> standard as codified at RCW <cross_reference>9A.12.010</cross_reference> is proper. <bold>[2] Stipulations — Stipulated Facts — Sufficiency — Test.</bold> Stipulated facts must be sufficient to permit a reasoned and informed analysis by the trial court and to allow an appellate court to review the issues arising from the decision on the stipulated facts. <bold>[3] Appeal — Disposition of Cause — Affirmance Not on the Merits</bold> <bold>— Inadequate Record and Argument.</bold> When the record on appeal and the parties' arguments and citations to authority are inadequate to base a rule of law for deciding the determinative issue on appeal, the appellate court may decline to decide the case on the merits and therefore affirm the trial court. DOLLIVER and MADSEN, JJ., did not participate in the disposition of this case.