88 Wash. 2d
Volume 88 — Washington Reports, Second Series
92 opinions
- 88 Wash. 2d 1State v. Byers (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 13State v. Thompson (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 28State v. Luoma (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 43State v. Coville (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 50Crose v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 60State v. Thompson (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 64Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 68Stieler v. Spokane School District No. 81 (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 75State v. McKinnon (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 93Japan Line, Ltd. v. McCaffree (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 100Fuqua v. Fuqua (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 109In Re Marriage of Firchau (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 116Bitzan v. Parisi (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 127State v. Smith (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 167Bresolin v. Morris (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 183Flanders v. Morris (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 192In Re the Ballot Title for Initiative 333 (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 200Washington State Public Employees' Board v. Cook (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 211State v. McHenry (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 221State v. Wanrow (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 247Sudduth v. Chapman (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 267State v. Petit (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 276Young v. Konz (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 286Gaylord v. Tacoma School District No. 10 (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 307McRae v. State (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 315Association of Washington Stevedoring Companies v. Department of Revenue (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 322Jones v. Hollingsworth (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 331Dwelley v. Chesterfield (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 337State v. Roberts (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 347Pan Pacific Trading Corp. v. Department of Labor & Industries (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 354Kallas v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 359Harbor Air Service, Inc. v. Board of Tax Appeals (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 368Washington State Liquor Control Board v. Washington State Personnel Board (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 380Ortblad v. State (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 385Chmela v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 394State v. Allan (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 400Frigidaire Sales Corp. v. Union Properties, Inc. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 406Architectural Woods, Inc. v. State (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 412Buchanan v. Washington State Board for Volunteer Firemen (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 417City of Goldendale v. Graves (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 426Employees of Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. Hutt (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 439Federated American Insurance v. Raynes (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 449Alexander Myers & Co. v. Hopke (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 468State v. Colwash (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 473Twelker v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 483Barnes v. Seattle School District No. 1 (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 490Esmieu v. Schrag (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 499Beeson v. Atlantic-Richfield Co. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 512State v. Porter (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 516Seattle-First National Bank v. Konz (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 518State v. Thompson (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 533State v. Clark (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 541Courtright v. Sahlberg Equipment, Inc. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 546State v. Thompson (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 552In Re the Personal Restraint of Vensel (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 556In Re the Welfare of Lewis (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 563Washington Ass'n of Apartment Associations v. Evans (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 573State v. Mriglot (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 579State v. Tourtellotte (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 586Taylor v. Morris (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 595Cherberg v. Peoples National Bank (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 607Dirk v. Amerco Marketing Co. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 614Stanard v. Bolin (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 624Standow v. City of Spokane (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 639State v. Smith (1977)
<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Insanity — Plea — Incompetency — Effect.</bold> A determination that a criminal defendant is not competent to stand trial precludes his effective entry of <italic>any</italic> plea, including one of not guilty by reason of insanity. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Insanity — Plea — Discretion of Court —</bold> <bold>Defendant's Election Not To Plead Insanity.</bold> When the facts of a particular case raise a strong question concerning a criminal defendant's mental irresponsibility at the time of the crime and the absence of other defenses, a trial court is justified in exercising its inherent power to enter an insanity plea on the defendant's behalf to protect his constitutional interests even in face of the defendant's knowing election not to so plead and his objections to the trial court's action. <bold>[3] Appeal and Error — Verdict Form — Review — In General.</bold> A trial court's instructions to the jury to return its verdict in the form of responses to specified interrogatories will be reviewed in the same manner as other instructions and must be supported by substantial evidence. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Insanity — Insanity Acquittal — Continued</bold> <bold>Detention — Evidence of Danger.</bold> The violent nature of the crime with which a criminal defendant was charged and of which he was acquitted on insanity grounds is a factor which may be considered in determining whether he poses a substantial danger to<page_number>Page 640</page_number> himself or others for purposes of continued detention and treatment. <bold>[5] Evidence — Opinion Evidence — Expert Testimony — Discretion</bold> <bold>of Court — Practical Experience — Consideration.</bold> A witness' practical experience rather than specialized education in a particular field may establish the necessary special skill or knowledge necessary to qualify him as an expert witness in that field. Determination of such qualification is a matter for the discretion of the trial court subject to review for abuse. <bold>[6] Criminal Law — Insanity — Competency To Stand Trial —</bold> <bold>Determination — Time Limits.</bold> Noncompliance with the time limits for determining a criminal defendant's competency to stand trial, as set forth in RCW 10.77.090, does not require the dismissal of the criminal charges when the State has substantially complied with those limits, there being no prejudice to the defendant from the delay involved and the essential purpose of determining competency being fulfilled.
- 88 Wash. 2d 649In Re the Marriage of Hadley (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 677Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. Moos (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 698Trust Fund Services v. Heyman (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 711Heggen Construction Co. v. Turalba (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 718Kennebec, Inc. v. Bank of the West (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 726Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 735Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 745Department of Revenue v. Henry (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 756Berge v. Gorton (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 773Boe v. Gorton (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 777Cascade Security Bank v. Butler (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 788Ruggles v. Seattle-First National Bank (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 799Purse Seine Vessel Owners Ass'n v. Moos (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 822Marino Property Co. v. Port of Seattle (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 835American Oil Co. v. Columbia Oil Co. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 844Ellis v. Department of Labor & Industries (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 855Langan v. Valicopters, Inc. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 867Moran v. State (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 878Doerflinger v. New York Life Insurance (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 883Lazov v. Black (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 887Roberts v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 899State v. Partin (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 909Shell Oil Co. v. Brooks (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 917Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Corp. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 925Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle v. Department of Labor & Industries (1977)
<bold>[1] Statutes — Construction — Administrative Construction.</bold> An unambiguous statute does not permit consideration by the courts of prior administrative constructions of its provisions. <bold>[2] Statutes — Construction — Legislative Intent — Similar</bold> <bold>Federal Law — Differences.</bold> The legislature is presumed to be aware of similar federal legislation when it enacts state legislation. Dissimilarities between such statutes are then deemed to have been deliberately intended. <bold>[3] Labor Relations — Public Employees — Collective Bargaining —</bold> <bold>Excluded Employees — Basis.</bold> The confidential relationship of certain specified public employees to the head of a bargaining unit is the critical feature which, under RCW <cross_reference>41.56.030</cross_reference>(2)(c), serves to exclude such employees from the collective bargaining privileges of the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act. Such employees are not excluded merely on the basis of their position title or on their relationship to other employees. <bold>[4] Labor Relations — Public Employees — Collective Bargaining —</bold> <bold>Excluded Employees — Supervisors.</bold> A public employee filling a supervisory role does not "act on behalf" of the employer within the meaning of the Public Collective Bargaining Act (RCW 41.56) unless such a supervisor is empowered to perform the range of acts which the employer could perform including the ability to commit unfair labor practices under the act. HOROWITZ, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
- 88 Wash. 2d 925METRO. SEATTLE v. Labor & Indus. (1977)
- 88 Wash. 2d 933Riley Pleas, Inc. v. State (1977)