Legal Opinion

City of Seattle v. May

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 24, 2009No. 61027-9-IPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.

¶1 A permanent protection order is not invalid when it does not contain language showing a specific finding made by the issuing court satisfying the statutory requirement that for orders exceeding one year the court must affirmatively find that the respondent is “likely to resume acts of domestic violence” against his former spouse and child. Nothing in the statute requires such a finding appear on the order itself. Thus, the order in this case, in which the court found “that an order of less than one year will be insufficient to prevent further acts of domestic violence,” was not facially…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  2. State v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Spence v. KaminskiCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  4. City of Seattle v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  5. Spence v. KaminskiCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. McLeanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  2. City of Seattle v. MayWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  3. In re the Dependency of P.P.T.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  4. In Re PptCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  5. State Of Washington v. Alem SkroboCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021

6 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