Potter v. Washington State Patrol
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentMadsen, J.
¶40 (dissenting) — Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the plain language of RCW 46.55.120 establishes that the legislature intended that the procedures and remedies in the statute are exclusive. Accordingly, the court should hold that no cause of action for conversion may be brought based on the Washington State Patrol’s impoundment of a vehicle.
¶41 At the outset, it is important to bear in mind that, regardless of this court’s invalidation of the former state patrol regulation mandating certain impounds, see In re Impoundment of Chevrolet Truck, 148 Wn.2d 145, 60 P.3d 53 (2002), not all…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1991
- All Around Underground, Inc. v. Washington State PatrolWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- In Re Impoundment of Chevrolet TruckWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- In re the Marriage of LanghamWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- In Re Marriage of LanghamWashington Supreme Court · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.