155 Wash. 2d 574
Decided October 13, 2005
Washington Supreme Court · decided 2005-10-13
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2007
5 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“the State is not an aggrieved party under RAP 3.1, we should dismiss.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Watson
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2005-10-13
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1(concurring in dissent) — I entirely agree with Justice Sanders who writes in dissent that “because the State is not an aggrieved party under RAP 3.1, we should dismiss.” Dissent at 581. That, in my view, is as far as we should go. I would, therefore, not go into a discussion, as Justice Sanders does, as to what we would do “[w]ere we to consider this matter on the merits.” Dissent at 582.
¶2Madsen, J., concurs with Alexander, C.J.