60 Wash. App. 584 - State v. Osloond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e hold that, in this instance, Niemi's serving as a judge pro tempore did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. As noted above, the Washington Constitution contains no express provision prohibiting legislators from being appointed as judges pro tempore. Utilizing the holding in Mistretta [v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 , 102 L. Ed. 2d 714 , 109 S. Ct. 647 (1989)], it can be said that when Niemi presided over Osloond's trial, she did so, not as a Washington state senator, but as one temporarily performing the functions of a judge appointed by the presiding judge and agreed to by the parties. In addition, analogizing to the discussion in [Smith v.] Mount[, 45 Wn. App. 623 , 726 P.2d 474 , review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1016 (1986)], there is no showing that Niemi's dual role interfered in this instance with either her legislative role or her judicial role, or that she wore "two hats" at the same time. Thus, there was no violation of the separation of powers doctrine.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 117 Wash. 2d 817 - In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Niemi

2. “SEPARATION OF POWERS [2] One of the fundamental principles of the American constitutional system is that the governmental powers are divided among three departments — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial — and that each is separate from the other.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 Wash. 2d 129 - Carrick v. Locke