Legal Opinion

City of Seattle v. McKenna

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 2011No. 84483-6PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwens, J.

¶1 The attorney general of Washington made the State a plaintiff in a multistate lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform legislation recently passed by Congress.1 The city of Seattle seeks a writ of mandamus directing the attorney general to withdraw the State of Washington from the litigation. Resolution of this case requires that we determine the scope of the powers of the attorney general under the Washington Constitution and our statutes. We need not and do not express any opinion on the constitutionality or wisdom of the health care reform…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Regents of the University of California v. BakkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. State v. O'CONNELLWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  3. City of Federal Way v. KoenigWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  4. City of Federal Way v. KoenigWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Berge v. GortonWashington Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Five Corners Family Farmers v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Goldmark v. McKennaWashington Supreme Court · 2011
  3. SER Discover Financial Services, Inc. v. Hon. David W. Nibert and SER Glaxosmithkline, LLC v. Hon. James H. Young, Jr.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Friends of North Spokane County Parks v. Spokane CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  5. A Better Richland v. ChiltonWashington Supreme Court · 2026

10 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