Chapter § 11.8 Effect of Stipulations and Concessions of Law

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§11.8 EFFECT OF STIPULATIONS AND CONCESSIONS OF LAW

"'Courts of law are not bound by parties' stipulations of law.'" Folsom v. County of Spokane, 111 Wn.2d 256, 261, 759 P.2d 1196 (1988) (quoting Rusan's, Inc. v. State, 78 Wn.2d 601, 606, 478 P.2d 724 (1970)) (parties were incorrect in their stipulated interpretation of the earlier Folsom decision, and the court was not bound by such interpretation; see also State v. Knighten, 109 Wn.2d 896, 901-02, 748 P.2d 1118 (1988) (state's concession that an arrest lacked probable cause was erroneous and not binding on the court). "[I]t is well established that a party concession or admission concerning a question of law or the legal effect of a statute as opposed to a statement of fact is not binding on the court." Knighten, 109 Wn.2d at 902 (quoting Dettore v. Brighton Township, 91 Mich. App. 526, 534, 284 N.W.2d 148, 151 (1979), judgment vacated on other grounds, 408 Mich. 957, 294 N.W.2d 692 (1980)); see also In re Goodwin, 146 Wn.2d 861, 875, 50 P.3d 618 (2002) (a court is not bound by an erroneous concession related to a matter of law). But see Vigil v. Spokane County, 42 Wn. App. 796, 799, 714 P.2d 692 (1986) (appellant's concession in the trial court that a three-year statute of limitations applied precluded an argument on review that a two-year statute applied, analogizing to the rule that "an erroneous...