Cannabis Ruderalis

How this document has been cited

—a debtor did not acquire a vested right not to pay an obligation because of expiration of the statute of limitations, and the legislature's passage of an act that removed the bar of the statute of limitations permitted institution of a cause of action for payment of the debt
As we recognized in Young I, the sound approach to this case is to acknowledge and appreciate that Const. art. 1, § 3 is the same as the federal due process clause, and federal cases, while not necessarily controlling, are entitled to be given great weight.
- in Young v. Konz, 1979 and one similar citation
In interpreting a state constitution, a state court is not bound by a federal court's interpretation of a comparable constitutional provision.
- in State v. Barklind, 1976 and one similar citation
It is clear, as a constitutional matter, that the repeal or extension of the time period of a statute of limitations is proper
Noting the similarity between the due process and equal protection clauses of US Const. amend. 14 and Const. art, 1, §§ 3, 12
- in Housing Authority v. Saylors, 1976 and one similar citation
We note first that our constitutional provision, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", is the same as that in the federal constitution; and that the federal cases while not necessarily controlling should be given "great weight" in construing our own due process provision.
- in Petstel, Inc. v. County of King, 1969 and one similar citation
The court only assigned substantial weight to Supreme Court interpretations, and required the Supreme Court's reasoning to be persuasive before following federal precedent.
Remington's Revised Statutes, § 159, removing the bar of the Statute of Limitations upon an action to recover for the illegal conversion of the assets of a corporation after the limitation had run, held to operate on the remedy only, and not to affect any vested right, in violation of the due process clause of the Federal Constitution.
- in Remington's Revised Statutes of Washington, Annotated: Showing All Statutes …
Remedial legislation has been held to be an exception to the general rule of construing statutes to operate prospectively only, and in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, remedial legislation is to be construed retroactively.
In fact, this court has had occasion to hold that it is not bound even where the provisions are identical.

Cited by

146 P. 3d 423 - Wash: Supreme Court 2006
588 P. 2d 1360 - Wash: Supreme Court 1979
581 P. 2d 1074 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 1978
557 P. 2d 321 - Wash: Supreme Court 1976
532 P. 2d 1173 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 2nd Div. 1975
513 P. 2d 559 - Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 1973

Leave a Reply