Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ahmet Hopovac v. State of Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 14, 2017No. 33992-1-IIIPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFearing, C.J.

¶27 (concurring in part and dissenting in part) — The majority justifies its ruling on four propositions. First, Washington earlier adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A (Am. Law Inst. 1965). Second, the Department of Corrections’ duty to protect others from criminal acts of third parties extends to felons in community custody, not only those in prison. Third, the Department of Corrections, as a matter of law, is not liable for denying Ahmet Hopovac the opportunity to use a gun to protect himself since Hopovac’s status as a felon already precluded his possession of a gun. Fourth, the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Yousoufian v. Office of Ron SimsWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Yousoufian v. Office of King County ExecutiveWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  3. State v. WeltyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
  4. State v. NugentWashington Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Hinton v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997

3 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