Legal Opinion

City of Seattle v. Hammon

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 13, 2006No. Nos. 55461-1-I; 55660-6-I; 55462-0-I; 55519-7-I; 55595-2-IPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*803¶1

Coleman, J.

— The consolidated appellants argue that the city of Seattle (City) is not entitled to recoup the cost of appellate counsel because the authorizing statute only specifies that costs incurred by the state may be recouped. We interpret RCW 10.73.160’s use of the term “state” to include political subdivisions of the state, such as the City.

¶2 Lyle Courtsal individually argues that the city prosecutor’s discretion to charge him with obstruction under either the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) or the Revised Code of Washington violates the rules of statutory interpretation and the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. BatchelderSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. City of Seattle v. FontanillaWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. ShrinerWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Robinson v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. City of Seattle v. HammonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  2. Walker-Schaut v. Lido Labs Holding CompanyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API