Shoop v. Kittitas County
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSanders, J.
Former RCW 36.01.050 (1997), amended by Laws of 2000, ch. 244, § 1, requires actions against a county be commenced in the defendant county or one of the two nearest counties. This case arises because the plaintiff filed *32her tort action in the wrong county shortly before the statute of limitations expired. The trial court concluded this was a jurisdictional requirement which could not be cured by a change of venue. We disagree, overruling Cossel v. Skagit County, 119 Wn.2d 434, 834 P.2d 609 (1992). We thus affirm the Court of Appeals.
FACTS
Cathleen Shoop alleges she sustained serious personal…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Berger v. SonnelandWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Berger v. SonnelandWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Weden v. San Juan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Weden v. San Juan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Crosby v. Spokane CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Yousoufian v. Office of Ron SimsWashington Supreme Court · 2004
- Dougherty v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIESWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Dougherty v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Young v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Young v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 2003
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.