93 Wash. 2d
Volume 93 — Washington Reports, Second Series
97 opinions
- 93 Wash. 2d 1Lewis v. ITT Continental Baking Co. (1979)
- 93 Wash. 2d 5Reed v. Pennwalt Corp. (1979)
- 93 Wash. 2d 7State v. Scott (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 17Berry v. Burdman (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 25In Re the Personal Restraint of Lehman (1980)
<bold>[1] Statutes — Construction — Meaning of Words — Ordinary</bold> <bold>Meaning.</bold> When interpreting unambiguous statutory language so as to give effect to the intent of the legislature, a court will give ordinary meanings to common words unless such a procedure yields absurd or incongruous results. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Punishment — Probation — Revocation —</bold> <bold>Conviction of Federal Offense — Effect.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>9.95.120</cross_reference>, which requires a parole violation hearing except when the violation involves an offense under the laws of "this or any other state," a state parolee who is subsequently convicted of a federal offense is entitled to a hearing prior to the revocation of his parole.
- 93 Wash. 2d 28In Re the Personal Restraint of Frederick (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 31In Re the Personal Restraint of Carle (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 34LeBeuf v. Atkins (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 37Washington Education Ass'n v. State (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 42Klossner v. San Juan County (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 51O'BRIEN v. Shearson Hayden Stone, Inc. (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 60State ex rel. Washington Federation of State Employees v. Board of Trustees of Central Washington University (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 60State v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 75Medrano v. Department of Social & Health Services (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 80State Ex Rel. Nugent v. Lewis (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 84Dutil v. State (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 95State v. Parr (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 108Washington Health Care Facilities Authority v. Ray (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 117Washington State Nurses Ass'n v. Board of Medical Examiners (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 122J. R. Simplot Co. v. Vogt (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 127Egede-Nissen v. Crystal Mountain, Inc. (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 143Hojem v. Kelly (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 148State v. Holsworth (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 162State v. Edwards (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 170State v. Allen (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 173State v. Styles (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 177State v. Bryan (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 186State v. Stephens (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 192State v. Swindell (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 199BALFOUR, GUTHRIE AND COMPANY, LIMITED v. Commercial Metals Co. (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 205Coulter v. State (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 210YAKIMA CEMENT PRODUCTS COMPANY v. Great American Ins. Co. (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 223Kittilson v. Ford (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 228In Re the Guardianship of Hayes (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 249Heaton v. Imus (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 257Golob & Sons, Inc. v. Schaake Packing Co. (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 268State v. Dupard (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 277State v. Rowe (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 288State v. Pettitt (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 301State v. Barton (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 309State v. Rinier (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 319Seay v. Chrysler Corporation (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 329State v. Smith (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 368Fahn v. Cowlitz County (1981)
- 93 Wash. 2d 390Seattle Shorelines Coalition v. Justen (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 398State ex rel. Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission (1980)
<bold>[1] States — Torts — Revolving Funds — Reimbursement by Agencies</bold> <bold>— Statutory Provisions.</bold> RCW 4.92.170 and <cross_reference>43.10.160</cross_reference>, which provide for reimbursement of the tort claims and legal services revolving funds by the moneys of the agency responsible for the expenses paid from those funds, neither supersede statutory restrictions on the use of regulatory fees collected by the agency nor preclude direct legislative appropriations to repay disbursements from the revolving funds when agency moneys are not available for such purpose.<page_number>Page 399</page_number> <bold>[2] Statutes — Construction — Conflicting Statutes — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> Apparent conflicts in statutes will be reconciled so that the provisions of each statute are given effect. <bold>[3] Railroads — Regulation — Fees — Limitation.</bold> Under RCW 81.24, which establishes regulatory fees to be paid by companies involved in transportation, the State may collect no more in its railroad regulatory fee account than the amount necessary for supervising and regulating the railroad industry. <bold>[4] Railroads — Regulation — Regulatory Fee Account —</bold> <bold>Disbursements — Legal Expenses.</bold> In the absence of proof that expenses incurred by the State in defending against tort claims and paying tort judgments are properly considered a cost of regulating the railroad industry, such expenses may not be paid out of funds collected pursuant to RCW 81.24 in the railroad regulatory fee account. <bold>[5] Mandamus — Nature — Clear Duty To Act.</bold> Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel the State, in accordance with its clear duty, to act or refrain from acting.
- 93 Wash. 2d 398State v. UTILITIES & TRANSP. COMM'N (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 411Merrick v. Sutterlin (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 416Agency Budget Corp. v. Washington Insurance Guaranty Ass'n (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 427American Sign & Indicator Corp. v. State (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 436State v. Fitzsimmons (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 454State v. Dailey (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 460In Re the Marriage of Larango (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 465Equitable Shipyards, Inc. v. State (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 484Brazil v. City of Auburn (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 497St. Regis Paper Co. v. Wicklund (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 504In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Krogh (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 510State v. Shipp (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 522Millikan v. Board of Directors of Everett School District No. 2 (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 533State v. Ponce (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 546Story v. Anderson (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 559King County Council v. Public Disclosure Commission (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 567City of Issaquah v. Teleprompter Corp. (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 580Morgan v. Burks (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 590State v. Herman (1980)
<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Jury — Examination of Jurors — Separate</bold> <bold>Examination — Discretion of Court.</bold> A trial court's refusal to allow voir dire outside the presence of other prospective jurors does not constitute an abuse of discretion when no significant possibility of prejudice exists and no actual prejudice results from questioning the prospective jurors as a group. <bold>[2] Witnesses — Impeachment — Prior Convictions — Verdict of</bold> <bold>Guilty.</bold> Under RCW 10.52.030, which allows a defendant's credibility to be impeached by evidence of prior convictions, a verdict of guilty is a conviction for such impeachment purposes even though judgment and sentence on the verdict have not yet been entered.
- 93 Wash. 2d 596Olympic Fish Products, Inc. v. Lloyd (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 603State v. Hood (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 615State v. Barton (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 624Mercer Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Bremerton (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 638State v. Larson (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 657London v. City of Seattle (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 670Kitt v. Yakima County (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 677Dillard v. Washington Public Employees' Retirement System (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 682Beggs v. City of Pasco (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 689In Re the Welfare of Aschauer (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 700Heavey v. Chapman (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 706In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Egger (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 709Powers v. Hastings (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 722City of Blaine v. Suess (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 728City of Seattle v. Rice (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 735State v. Meacham (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 742Skagit County v. Department of Ecology (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 751State v. Tongate (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 757Long v. Chiropractic Society (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 766Peeples v. Port of Bellingham (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 777First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ekanger (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 783Washington Education Ass'n v. Shelton School District No. 309 (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 794State v. Jamison (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 801Larner v. TORGERSON CORPORATION (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 808In re the Estate of Gunderson (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 815City of Tacoma v. Hyster Co. (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 823State v. Cunningham (1980)
<bold>[1] Privacy — Evidence — Recording Private Conversation —</bold> <bold>Custodial Statement — Statutory Provisions.</bold> RCW <cross_reference>9.73.030</cross_reference>, which authorizes the use of a recorded statement if all persons engaged therein have consented, is supplemented by RCW <cross_reference>9.73.090</cross_reference>(2), which sets forth the nature and means of obtaining consent in the special situation of a custodial arrest. <bold>[2] Privacy — Evidence — Recording Private Conversation —</bold> <bold>Custodial Statement — Requirements — Compliance.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>9.73.090</cross_reference>(2), the admissibility of a recording of a statement made by a person in custody depends upon strict compliance with the requirement that the information set forth in the statute be included in the recording itself. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Review — Harmless Error — Statutory</bold> <bold>Violation.</bold> Error will not require reversal of a criminal conviction<page_number>Page 824</page_number> unless it has resulted in prejudice. When the error is not constitutional in nature, it will be deemed harmless if the court can say, within reasonable probabilities, that the outcome of the trial would not have been materially affected if the error had not occurred. <bold>[4] Evidence — Waiver of Error — Use by Aggrieved Party.</bold> A party cannot claim prejudicial error in the admission of evidence after utilizing such evidence in his own behalf. <bold>[5] Evidence — Sound Recordings — Typed Transcript — Accuracy —</bold> <bold>Determination.</bold> The use of typed transcripts of a sound recording, solely as assistance in understanding the recording, is discretionary with the trial court. While it is error to use transcripts without a stipulation or proof of their accuracy, there is no prejudicial error if the transcripts are in fact accurate. <bold>[6] Appeal and Error — Review — Issues Not Raised in Trial Court</bold> <bold>— In General.</bold> As a general rule, issues not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. <bold>[7] Appeal and Error — Supreme Court Review of Court of Appeals</bold> <bold>— Disposition of Cause.</bold> When an issue properly presented to the Court of Appeals has been discussed but not resolved because of a disposition on other grounds, the Supreme Court may remand the cause to the Court of Appeals for resolution of the issue if it becomes critical to the ultimate disposition of the appeal.
- 93 Wash. 2d 838State v. Thompson (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 843Barrie v. Kitsap County (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 861City of Seattle v. Shepherd (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 870Hayden v. City of Port Townsend (1980)
- 93 Wash. 2d 881Liebergesell v. Evans (1980)