Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
DeFunis v. Odegaard
Washington Supreme Court
Decided December 12, 1974No. 42198Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFinley, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part) — On April 23, 1974, the United States Supreme Court ruled per curiam that our decision in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 82 Wn.2d 11, 507 P.2d 1169 (1973), had become moot and thus could not be reviewed on the merits. The Supreme Court then by an order vacated our judgment and remanded the cause for “such proceedings as . . . may be deemed appropriate.” (Italics mine.) DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 40 L. Ed. 2d 164, 170-71, 94 S. Ct. 1704, 1707 (1974).
Notwithstanding the apparently entrenched practice of the Supreme Court of vacating state court judgments…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cohens v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- North Carolina v. RiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- DeFunis v. OdegaardSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Martin v. Hunter's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Liner v. Jafco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.