§ 18.5 Scope of Review Once Review Is Accepted

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§18.5 SCOPE OF REVIEW ONCE REVIEW IS ACCEPTED

The Supreme Court accepts review of a decision of the Court of Appeals by granting a petition for review or by granting a motion for discretionary review. RAP 13.6. The Supreme Court may specify the issue or issues it will review upon accepting discretionary review. RAP 13.6.

When a party seeks review by the Supreme Court of an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeals pursuant to RAP 13.5, the case remains in the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merits unless the Supreme Court grants review. If the Supreme Court denies that review and later accepts review of the case on the merits, the interlocutory decision may also be reviewed by the Supreme Court, if it is relevant. RAP 13.5(d).

If the Supreme Court accepts review of either a Court of Appeals decision terminating review or an interlocutory decision, review is ordinarily limited to those issues raised in the petition for review and answer or in the motion for discretionary review. RAP 13.7(b); In re Personal Restraint of Hall, 163 Wn.2d 346, 350 n.4, 181 P.3d 799 (2008); State v.Korum, 157 Wn.2d 614, 624-25, 141 P.3d 13 (2006) (court declined to consider an issue raised in respondent's supplemental brief because the issue had not been clearly raised in the concise statement of issues in the answer to the petition for review), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1002 (2010); State v. Leyda, 157 Wn.2d 335, 138 P.3d 610 (2006) (court refused to consider argument of petitioner raised for the first time in a supplemental brief); Denaxas v. Sandstone Court of Bellevue, LLC, 148 Wn.2d 654, 671, 63 P.3d 125 (2003).

However, the court has inherent authority to consider issues first raised in a supplemental brief, and may do so with respect to issues that affect jurisdiction or are perceived as necessary to proper resolution of the case. Herring v. Texaco, Inc, 161 Wn.2d 189, 195-96, 165 P.3d 4 (2007) (jurisdictional issue in bankruptcy case should be considered when it might call into question the right to maintain the action); State v. Cantu, 156 Wn.2d 819, 822 n.1, 132 P.3d 725 (2006) (necessary for proper resolution of case); ArborwoodIdaho, L.L.C. v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 365, 89 P.3d 217 (2004) (issue not raised in petition for review would be considered when order granting review specifically ordered parties to address issue in supplemental briefs); State v. Buchanan, 138 Wn.2d 186, 978 P.2d 1070 (1999) (jurisdictional issue), cert....