Sackett v. Santilli
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtIreland, J.
— Defendant driver Thomas A. Santilli contends that CR 38(d), which provides that a party’s failure to perfect demand for a jury trial in accord with CR 38(b) implies that party’s consent to the waiver of the right to a jury, is unconstitutional under article I, section 21 of our state constitution. Santilli claims the constitution vests the legislature with the exclusive power to “provide for . . . waiving of the jury in civil cases.” Const, art. I, § 21. Holding that section 21 should be read as a limitation on the power of the legislature, not a grant of exclusive authority, we affirm the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Foster-Wyman Lumber Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1928
- State v. FieldsWashington Supreme Court · 1975
- Diversified Investment Partnership v. Department of Social & Health ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 1989
- Marine Power & Equipment Co. v. Department of TransportationWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Clark v. NetererWashington Supreme Court · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Saldivar v. MomahCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Saldivar v. MomahCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- Sackett v. SantilliWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. ChavezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- State v. ChavezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.