125 Wash. 2d
Volume 125 — Washington Reports, Second Series
57 opinions
- 125 Wash. 2d 1McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 24State v. Russell (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 113Bryant v. Bryant (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 120Sea-Van Investments Associates v. Hamilton (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 129Carrick v. Locke (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 146State v. Krall (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 150State v. Pacheco (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 164Kish v. Insurance Co. of North America (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 173State v. Dearbone (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 183Erickson v. KERR, MDPS, INC. (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 196Buechel v. Department of Ecology (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 212State v. Wilson (1994)
<bold>[1] Statutes — Construction — Supreme Court Authority.</bold> The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to determine the meaning and purpose of a state statute. <bold>[2] Statutes — Construction — Purpose — In General.</bold> The purpose of statutory construction is to give content and force to the language used by the Legislature. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Statutes — Construction — Strict Construction</bold> <bold>— Plain Meaning.</bold> Criminal statutes are construed literally and strictly; plain statutory language does not require construction. <bold>[4] Assault, Criminal — Elements — Source — Common Law.</bold> Criminal "assault" is not defined by statute; its definition is derived from the common law. <bold>[5] Assault, Criminal — First Degree Assault — Intent To Inflict</bold> <bold>Great Bodily Harm — Transferred Intent — Unintended Victim.</bold> In a prosecution for first degree assault under RCW <cross_reference>9A.36.011</cross_reference>, a defendant's intent to inflict great bodily harm upon an intended victim transfers to an unintended victim. An intent against one victim is intent against all victims. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Punishment — Sentence — Criminal History —</bold> <bold>Multiple Convictions — Consecutive or Concurrent Sentences —</bold> <bold>Statutory Provision — Purpose.</bold> RCW 9.94A.400(1)(b), which requires consecutive sentences for two or more<page_number>Page 213</page_number> serious violent crimes, as defined by RCW <cross_reference>9.94A.030</cross_reference>, arising from separate and distinct criminal conduct, is intended to significantly increase the punishment for certain multiple violent offenders. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Punishment — Sentence — Criminal History —</bold> <bold>Multiple Convictions — Consecutive or Concurrent Sentences —</bold> <bold>"Separate and Distinct Criminal Conduct" — Multiple</bold> <bold>Assaults.</bold> Multiple first degree assaults, each against a separate victim, arise from "separate and distinct criminal conduct" for purposes of RCW 9.94A.400(1)(b), which requires consecutive sentences for two or more serious violent crimes, as defined by RCW <cross_reference>9.94A.030</cross_reference>, arising from separate and distinct criminal conduct.
- 125 Wash. 2d 222Kilpatrick v. Department of Labor & Industries (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 239State v. Garcia (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 243Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 277Westerman v. Cary (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 305Timberline Air Service, Inc. v. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC. (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 332Inter Island Telephone Co. v. San Juan County (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 337Mt. Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Tydings (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 345Whatcom County v. Brisbane (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 364Tellevik v. Real Property Known as 31641 West Rutherford Street (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 378State v. Maxfield (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 407State v. Vike (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 413Federal Signal Corp. v. Safety Factors, Inc. (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 445Metzner v. Wojdyla (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 456Price v. Kitsap Transit (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 472State v. Silva-Baltazar (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 488Failor's Pharmacy v. Department of Social & Health Services (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 500King v. Riveland (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 521Washington Mutual Savings Bank v. Hedreen (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 533Marley v. Department of Labor & Industries (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 544Berg v. Ting (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 570State v. Gentry (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 683In Re the Recall of Shipman (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 688State v. Young (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 697Ruff v. County of King (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 707State v. Byrd (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 717State v. Alexander (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 733St. Joseph Hospital & Health Care Center v. Department of Health (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 745Bravo v. Dolsen Companies (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 759Loveridge v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 769State v. Calle (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 782State v. Vangerpen (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 797State v. Campbell (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 805Arco Products Co. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 818Department of Licensing v. Lax (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 825State v. Lane (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 847State v. Lough (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 865In Re the Marriage of Short (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 876State v. Warner (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 893State v. Stewart (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 901Washington State Bar Ass'n v. State (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 915State v. Buckner (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 919State v. Ford (1995)
- 125 Wash. 2d 1002State v. Tatum (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 1002Sherrell v. Selfors (1994)
- 125 Wash. 2d 1005Gerken v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. (1994)