Legal Opinion

City of Seattle v. Fontanilla

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1996No. 62422-4PublishedCited by 120 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlexander, J.

— This appeal requires us to examine RCW 9A.16.110, a statute that provides, in part, that "the state of Washington shall indemnify or reimburse [a] defendant for all loss of time, legal fees, or other expenses involved in his or her defense” when the defendant is acquitted of criminal charges on grounds that he or she acted in self-defense. More specifically, we are asked to decide whether the King County Superior Court erred in affirming the Seattle Municipal Court’s determination that the latter court lacked authority to order the State or *495the City to reimburse Susan Fontanilla for costs…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Martin v. WilksSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Bowers v. Transamerica Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State v. CoriaWashington Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by120 opinions

  1. Nguyen v. STATE HEALTH MED. QUALITY ASSUR.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Callecod v. Washington State PatrolCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  3. In Re HalversonWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  4. In re the Disciplinary Proceeding against HalversonWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 2002

115 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