City of Seattle v. Fuller
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, C.J.
¶1 Historically, the legislature granted all courts the authority to impose restitution. In 1996, the legislature amended two statutes addressing restitution, RCW 9.92.060 and RCW 9.95.210, adding language that the defendant, Donald Fuller, contends divested municipal courts of this authority, except in limited circumstances. Considering the amendments to these statutes in light of the legislature’s intent and the surrounding statutes and case law, we hold that the amendments did not alter the authority of municipal courts to impose restitution and we affirm the Court of Appeals.
FACTS
¶2…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
- State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- Restaurant Development, Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- Restaurant Development, Inc. v. Cananwill, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- Kilian v. AtkinsonWashington Supreme Court · 2002
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State of Washington v. Joshua James ClarkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- Gray v. Suttell & AssociatesWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- Sanders v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. (In re Sanders)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · 2018
- Gray v. Suttell & Assocs.Washington Supreme Court · 2014
- In re the Detention of: James McMahanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.