Legal Opinion

State v. Duffey

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 23, 1999No. 23602-8-IIPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeinfeld, J.

The State charged Timothy Charles Duffey 1 with barratry, RCW 9.12.010, alleging that the “Demand for Particulars” (Demand) Duffey served on the police officers who had cited him for traffic offenses purported to be or resembled a “judicial process.” The trial court dismissed the charge and the State appeals. We conclude that the Demand, which neither purports to be nor resembles a court order or a document used to inform a defendant of the institution of judicial proceedings against him, does not constitute a judicial process, as the barratry statute uses that term. Thus, we affirm the…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. United States v. WellsSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  3. City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State v. KnapstadWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State v. LewisWashington Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. SullivanWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. SullivanWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Hough v. StockbridgeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Hough v. StockbridgeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  5. State of Washington v. Herbert Elmer EllsworthCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014

4 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