§1.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§1.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

The civil rules apply only to procedural issues. Vasquez v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 44 Wn.App. 379, 383, 722 P.2d 854 (1986); see also Christensen v. Ellsworth, 162 Wn.2d 365, 173 P.3d 228 (2007) (holding that the time computation rule did not apply to an unlawful detainer action's three-day waiting period, which was a substantive element, and not a "proceeding"). The Supreme Court's power to establish procedural rules is supreme, and its rules supersede inconsistent procedural statutes. Petrarca v. Halligan, 83 Wn.2d 773, 776, 522 P.2d 827 (1974). Nonetheless, because civil discovery is not inconsistent with the rules governing sexually violent predator review proceedings, the civil rules apply to such proceedings, entitling alleged predators to depositions and other discovery. In re Petersen, 145 Wn.2d 789, 801, 42 P.3d 952 (2002). The civil rules take precedence in the event of a conflict with statutory procedure. CR 81; see also Adkinson v. Digby, Inc., 99 Wn.2d 206, 209 n.1, 660 P.2d 756 (1983).

The civil rules were adopted "to eliminate or at least to minimize technical miscarriages of justice inherent in archaic procedural concepts." DGHI, Enters. v. Pac. Cities, Inc., 137 Wn.2d 933, 954, 977 P.2d 1231 (1999) (quoting Curtis Lumber Co. v. Sortor, 83 Wn.2d 764, 767, 522 P.2d 822 (1974)). Indeed, the primary consideration for courts construing the rules of civil procedure should be justice. Coggle v. Snow, 56 Wn.App. 499, 507-08, 784 P.2d 554 (1990); see also Graves v.Vaagen Bros. Lumber, Inc., 55 Wn.App. 908, 913, 781 P.2d 895 (1989) ("A holding to the contrary in this case would violate the spirit of CR 1 ...."). Additionally, "CR 1 requires Washington courts to interpret the court rules in a manner ‘that advances the underlying purpose of the rules, which is to reach a just determination in every action.'" Spokane County v. Specialty Auto & Truck Painting, Inc., 153 Wn.2d 238, 245, 103...