Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re the Recall of Pearsall-Stipek

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 2000No. 68216-0Published

1DissentJohnson, J.

(dissenting) — I agree with the majority that lying under oath, even as to immaterial issues, is a serious matter that will not be condoned by the courts of this state. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that any misrepresentation under oath, no matter how immaterial, rises to the level of “ ‘substantial conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of the oath of office.’ ” In re Recall of Sandhaus, 134 Wn.2d 662, 668, 953 P.2d 82 (1998) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Recall of Shipman, 125 Wn.2d 683, 685, 886 P.2d 1127 (1995)).

The history of the right…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Cole v. WebsterWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. State ex rel. Mandatory Bussing v. BrooksWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State Ex Rel. Knabb v. FraterWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  4. In re the Recall of SandhausWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. In Re the Recall of ShipmanWashington Supreme Court · 1995

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