Legal Opinion

Sackett v. Santilli

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 13, 2002No. 70163-6PublishedCited by 23 opinions

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

  1. State Ex Rel. Foster-Wyman Lumber Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1928
  2. State v. FieldsWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Diversified Investment Partnership v. Department of Social & Health ServicesWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Marine Power & Equipment Co. v. Department of TransportationWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State ex rel. Clark v. NetererWashington Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Saldivar v. MomahCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  2. Saldivar v. MomahCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  3. Sackett v. SantilliWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State v. ChavezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  5. State v. ChavezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006

18 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