State v. Peterson

Decided December 18, 1997

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1997-12-18

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“`Principles of judicial restraint dictate that if resolution of an issue effectively disposes of a case, we should resolve the case on that basis without reaching any other issues that might be presented.'”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Hayden v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., WASH. STATE FARM BUREAU FEDER. v. Gregoire

Applies WA 10 § 10.61.003

Relies on Manning v. Upjohn Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-12-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably State v. Roberts (2001), State v. Peterson (1997)

27 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 →

Talmadge, J.

¶1(concurring) — I agree with the majority opinion except in its needless discussion of whether the State’s motion to amend pursuant to CrR 2.1(d) was proper. We do not need to reach the question of whether *894CrR 2.1(d) was violated in this case because the trier of fact may find a defendant guilty of any crime of a degree inferior to that charge in the information. RCW 10.61.003. As the majority properly recognized, Majority op. at 893, the State’s motion to amend pursuant to CrR 2.1(d) was unnecessary. "Principles of judicial restraint dictate that if resolution of an issue effectively disposes of a case, we should resolve the case on that basis without reaching any other issues that might be presented.” Manning v. Upjohn Co., 862 F.2d 545, 547 (5th Cir. 1989).

¶2Durham, C.J., concurs with Talmadge, J.