Renner v. City of Marysville
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentFairhurst, J.
¶27 (dissenting) — In the name of liberal construction and substantial compliance, the majority distorts the amount requirement of the claim filing statute, former RCW 4.96.020(3) (2001). By holding that it is sufficient to merely list all the available classes of damages, the majority undermines the legislature’s intent to encourage settlement. Because I would hold that Renner’s claim form was deficient, I respectfully dissent.
¶28 The Washington State Constitution reserves to the legislature the right to “direct by law, in what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cagle v. Burns and Roe, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
- Medina v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 2002
- Medina v. Public Utility District No. 1Washington Supreme Court · 2002
- Born v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1902
- Olson v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.