¶1(concurring) — -I concur in the result reached in the foregoing opinion only because of the rule of stare decisis. I am, however, reády to overrule our former decisions in so far as they seem to hold that a city can punish for exactly the same acts which the state criminal law makes punishable, if a majority of the court will agree with me. The logic of some of our former decisions seems to be that one may be twice punished for the same act if it happens to be punishable under both the state criminal law and a city ordinance. The state and the city are not in any sense two separate sovereigns, as are in a sense the state and the Nation. The reason that will support this conviction under a city ordinance will also support a conviction of robbery or burglary under a city ordinance, should the city assume to provide punishment for such offenses.
130 Wash. 531
State v. Larkin
Decided September 4, 1924
Washington Supreme Court · decided 1924-09-04
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1924-09-04
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2018
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →