Legal Opinion · Dissent

Higher Education Facilities Authority v. Gardner

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1985No. 50931-0Published

1DissentGoodloe, J.

(dissenting) — Because I believe that Const. art. 1, § 11 (amend. 34) and Const. art. 8, § 5 are violated by this legislative scheme, I respectfully dissent.

Const. art. 1, § 11 (amend. 34)

Admittedly, State Health Care Facilities Auth. v. Spellman, 96 Wn.2d 68, 633 P.2d 866 (1981) addressed an article 1, section 11 challenge to a similar legislative scheme and found the legislation not to be constitutionally infirm. Spellman carefully, and I believe correctly, answered the "money" component of article 1, section 11. However, it gives short shrift to the "property" component.

I believe Spellman…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1981
  2. York v. StoneWashington Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Washington State Housing Finance Commission v. O'BrienWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Washington Health Care Facilities Authority v. RayWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Washington Health Care Facilities Authority v. SpellmanWashington Supreme Court · 1981

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API