Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nielson v. Spanaway General Medical Clinic, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1998No. 65246-5Published

1DissentSanders, J.

(dissenting) — The constitution of our state does not mince words on the subject at hand. “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate . . . .” Wash. Const, art. I, § 21. This court has regularly demonstrated that it, too, does not mince words. “The term ‘inviolate’ connotes deserving of the highest protection. . . . For such a right to remain inviolate, it must not diminish over time and must be protected from all assaults to its essential guaranties.” Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636, 656, 771 P.2d 711, 780 P.2d 260 (1989) (citation omitted). The right of trial by jury “is a…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

25 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