82 Wash. 2d
Volume 82 — Washington Reports, Second Series
82 opinions
- 82 Wash. 2d 1Herrmann v. Cissna (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 11DeFunis v. Odegaard (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 68Criscuola v. Andrews (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 74State v. Vidal (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 87State v. Mecca Twin Theater & Film Exchange, Inc. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 94State v. Conifer Enterprises, Inc. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 109Stempel v. Department of Water Resources (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 121In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against England (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 122Glen Falls Insurance v. Vietzke (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 128Centralia College Education Ass'n v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 12 (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 136Tacoma Community College Federation of Teachers v. Board of Trustees of Tacoma Community College (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 138Pacific Northwest Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. Walla Walla County (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 145Ace Novelty Co. v. M. W. Kasch Co. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 152Myers v. Harris (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 156State v. Johnson (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 157State v. Braun (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 172State v. Ladely (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 178Hudson House, Inc. v. Rozman (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 188Ashley v. Superior Court (1973)
<bold>[1] Divorce — Nature of Remedy — Interest of State — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> Although a divorce action is a private matter, the state, by retaining exclusive power over it and by providing both the only forum and the precisely prescribed grounds acceptable for such actions, has expressed an interest in such matters far beyond its interest in other private litigation. <bold>[2] Courts — Access to Courts — Payment of Fees — In General.</bold> While courts are generally maintained by public funds, parties utilizing the courts to enforce private rights or obtain private relief may be required to pay, as fees, a portion of the court costs involved. <bold>[3] Divorce — Courts — Access to Courts — Payment of Fees —</bold> <bold>Indigents.</bold> The payment of trial court fees normally required in an action for divorce, may be waived upon a showing by the plaintiff of actual indigency, need for the divorce based on meritorious grounds, absence of collusion with the defendant, and the unavailability of alternate sources of funds for the fees. [See 20 Am.Jur.2d, Costs §§ 47-51.] <bold>[4] Divorce — Courts — Access to Courts — Service of Process —</bold> <bold>Indigents — Public Funds.</bold> The cost of service of process in an indigent plaintiff's action for divorce may not be paid out of public funds in the absence of a specific legislative appropriation (Const. art. 8, § 4 (amendment 11)). <bold>[5] Divorce — Process — Indigents — Certified Mail.</bold> Upon a proper showing a trial court may order that service of process, in an action for divorce by an indigent plaintiff, be by certified mail utilizing a return receipt. HAMILTON and UTTER, JJ., concur in the result only; BRACHTENBACH, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
- 82 Wash. 2d 199Weiss v. Bruno (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 232Public Utility District No. 2 v. State (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 250Stender v. Twin City Foods, Inc. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 265State v. RALPH WILLIAMS'NW CHRYSLER (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 265State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 280Department of Highways v. King County Chapter (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 289State v. Fox (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 295Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc. v. Gray (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 307State Ex Rel. Helm v. Kramer (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 321State Ex Rel. Standard Mining & Development Corp. v. City of Auburn (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 332In Re Estate of Eggert (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 337Hockley v. Hargitt (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 352Thompson v. Thompson (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 360Kinne v. Kinne (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 367Washington State School Directors Ass'n v. Department of Labor & Industries (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 382State v. Womack (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 387Wood v. Postelthwaite (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 390In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Greenlee (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 396State Ex Rel. Hood v. Washington State Personnel Board (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 404Jeanneret v. Rees (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 412Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Federated American Insurance (1973)
<bold>[1] Insurance — Multiple Coverage — Pro Rata Discharge of</bold> <bold>Obligation — Basis.</bold> Liability shall be distributed among joint insurers of the same insured by prorating it according to policy limits. <block_quote> [See Ann. 69 A.L.R.2d 1122; 44 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance § 1807 <italic>et seq.</italic>]</block_quote> <bold>[2] Insurance — Multiple Coverage — Pro Rata Discharge of Costs</bold> <bold>— Basis.</bold> The costs, including attorneys' fees, of defending an insured shall generally be shared on a pro rata basis by joint insurers consistent with the degree of coverage afforded by each insurer. STAFFORD, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
- 82 Wash. 2d 412Pac. Indem. Co. v. FED. AM. INS. CO. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 418Olympic Forest Products, Inc. v. Chaussee Corp. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 437Washington State Welfare Rights Organization v. State (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 440State v. Antoine (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 455Curtiss v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 475Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 511Swanson v. Kramer (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 537Hughes v. Kramer (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 549Department of Revenue v. Hoppe (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 573Payne v. Payne (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 577State v. Roybal (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 584State v. J-R Distributors, Inc. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 663State v. Sampson (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 667Greenwood v. STATE BD. FOR COM. COL. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 667Greenwood v. State Board for Community College Education (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 673Cervitor Kitchens, Inc. v. Chapman (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 681Schiffman v. Hanson Excavating Co. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 693In Re Estate of Lyman (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 694Knowles v. Holly (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 706Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Morgan (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 714Investment Exchange Realty, Inc. v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc. (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 718Lavergne v. Boysen (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 722State v. 28 Containers of Thick & Frosty (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 736In Re Welfare of Sego (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 746Halverson v. Anderson (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 754Loveless v. Yantis (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 766Kjellman v. Richards (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 771Seamans v. Walgren (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 777State v. Craig (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 790State v. Davis (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 794City of Seattle v. Pullman (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 811Diversified Industries Development Corp. v. Ripley (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 816In Re Koome (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 822Peoples National Bank v. Peterson (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 834In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Espedal (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 839Brewster Public Schools v. Public Utility District No. 1 (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 851State v. Walker (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 858EL COBA CO. v. Franklin Cy. PUD (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 858El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin County Public Utility District (1973)
<bold>[1] Appeal and Error — Review — Scope — Supreme Court Review of</bold> <bold>Court of Appeals — Issues Considered.</bold> In reviewing a decision of the Court of Appeals upon granting a petition for review, the Supreme Court will consider only those issues raised in the petition for review or the answer thereto, unless the resolution of such issues requires the consideration of other matters. <bold>[2] Statutes — Construction — Prior Legislation — Judicial</bold> <bold>Construction.</bold> The legislature is presumed to be familiar not only with its prior enactments relating to a subject, but also with judicial decisions which construe those enactments. <bold>[3] Statutes — Repeal — By Implication.</bold> A statute is impliedly repealed by a later enactment either when the later act covers the entire subject matter of the earlier act, is complete in itself, and is evidently intended to supersede prior legislation on the subject, or when the two acts are so clearly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other that they cannot be reconciled and both given effect by a fair and reasonable construction. [See Am. Jur., Statutes (1st ed. § 534 <italic>et seq.</italic>).] <bold>[4] Public Utility Districts — Contracts — Nonclaim Statutes —</bold> <bold>Filing of Claim — Necessity.</bold> It is not necessary to file a claim with a public utility district prior to commencing an action for damages based on contract or arising out of a breach of contract since the provision of RCW <cross_reference>54.16.110</cross_reference> so requiring was impliedly repealed by the enactment of Laws of 1967, ch. 164, §§ 1 and 4 (RCW <cross_reference>4.96.010</cross_reference>, .020).
- 82 Wash. 2d 865State v. Wetherell (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 872State v. Scheffel (1973)
- 82 Wash. 2d 882State v. Regan (1973)