Legal Opinion
Eugster v. State
Washington Supreme Court
Decided June 16, 2011No. 84380-5PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFairhurst, J.
¶1 Stephen K. Eugster, pro se, argues that Washington’s process of electing Court of Appeals judges and assigning cases to three-judge panels violates article I, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution, which provides that “[a] 11 Elections shall be free and equal.” We affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss Eugster’s case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I. FACTUAL HISTORY
¶2 The Washington State Court of Appeals was created by a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1968. Laws of 1969, State Measures, Amend. 50, at 2975 (codified as Const.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Carrick v. LockeWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1994
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Eugster v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- Carlson v. San Juan CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Fish And Wildlife Officers Guild, Resp. v. Wa State Dept. Of Fish And Wildlife, Apps.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- Bank Of New York Mellon v. Brad L. Billings & Johnita D. BillingsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
- Michael Carlson, App/cross-res. v. San Juan County, Res/cross-app.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014