§38.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§38.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

(1) General principles of right to trial by jury

(a) Washington

In cases involving mixed questions of law and equity, the court has wide discretion to allow a jury trial on some, none, or all issues presented. In exercising such discretion, the court should consider the so-called Scavenius factors. See Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 94 Wn.2d 359, 368, 617 P.2d 704 (1980) (quoting Scavenius v. Manchester Port Dist., 2 Wn.App. 126, 129-30, 467 P.2d 372 (1970)); see also Rao v. Auburn Gen. Hosp., 19 Wn.App. 124,129, 573 P.2d 834, review denied, 90 Wn.2d 1015 (1978); Thompson v. Butler, 4 Wn.App. 452, 454-55, 482P.2d791, review denied, 79 Wn.2d 1004 (1971).

The distinction between actions at law and those at equity is based on the nature rather than the form of the proceeding. The overall nature of the civil action is determined by considering all of the issues raised by the pleadings. Allard v. Pac. Nat'l Bank, 99 Wn.2d 394, 399-400, 663P.2d104 (1983), opinion amended, 773P.2d420 (1989). Whether there is a right to trial by jury is to be determined solely by reference to the claims that are actually tried; claims that are pleaded but dismissed prior to trial do not affect the determination. Kim v. Dean, 133 Wn.App. 338, 346, 135P.3d978 (2006).

The state constitutional provision protects the right to a jury trial in substance as it existed when the provision was adopted. State ex rel. Goodner v. Speed, 96 Wn.2d 838, 840, 640 P.2d 13, cert, denied, 459 U.S. 863 (1982).

RCW 4.44.090, which provides that questions of fact are to be decided by jury, applies only to cases that are tried by a jury. State ex rel. Dep't of Ecology v. Anderson, 94 Wn.2d 727, 732, 620 P.2d 76 (1980).

Courts should allow a jury trial if the nature of the action is doubtful. Scavenius, 2 Wn.App. 126 (factor six of the seven Scavenius factors).

An order improperly granting a jury trial on a "purely equitable" claim is a reversible one, compelling remand for trial by the court. Kim, 133 Wn.App. at 347.

See also Philip A. Trautman, Right to Jury Trial in Washington -Present and Future, 34 Wash. L. Rev. 401 (1959);Note, Constitutional Law - Civil Rules for Superior Courts - Right to Civil Jury Trial, 6 Gonz. L. Rev. Ill (1970); Roger W Kirst, Jury's Historic Domain in Complex Cases, 58 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (1982).

(b) Federal

The right to a jury trial is not defeated when a claim is asserted in what began as an equitable proceeding. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510-11, 79 S. Ct. 948, 3 L. Ed. 2d 988 (1959).

When equitable and legal claims are joined in the same action, there is a right to a jury trial on legal claims that shall not be infringed by trial of the legal issues as incidental to the equitable issues, or by trial to the court of common issues existing between the claims. The Seventh Amendment question depends on the nature of the issue to be tried instead of on the character of the overall action. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 537-38, 90 S. Ct. 733, 24 L. Ed. 2d 729 (1970).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not affect the constitutional right to trial by jury of legal claims. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 472-73, 82 S. Ct. 894, 8 L. Ed. 2d 44 (1962) (citing Beacon Theatres, Inc., 359 U.S. 500).

Other federal cases are collected in 8 James W Moore, Moore's Federal Practice §38.11 (3d ed. 2013), and 9 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§2301-2322 (3d ed. 2008).

(2)Types of cases and issues

(a) Washington

Whether an action is equitable or legal for the purpose of determining rights to a jury trial is determined from all of the pleadings. Sunset Pac. Oil Co. v. Clark, 171 Wash. 165, 168, 17 P.2d 879 (1933).

A jury trial is properly denied when, looking to the entire pleadings, an accounting is clearly indicated, subsequent admissions and stipulations that reduced the case to a pure action at law are unavailing, and no further demand for a jury is made. Sunset Pac. Oil Co., 171 Wash. 165.

No right to a jury trial exists in a case involving a cause of action created by statute and having no common-law counterpart. State v. State Credit Ass'n, Inc., 33 Wn.App. 617, 620-21, 657 P.2d 327 (1983), review granted and remanded, 102 Wn.3d 1022 (1984).

A criminal defendant's right to a jury trial is not "chilled" by the court's consideration at a later civil forfeiture proceeding of the costs incurred by the state in the original criminal jury trial. State v. Clark, 68 Wn.App. 592, 606-07, 844 P.2d 1029 (1993), aff'd, 124 Wn.2d 90, 875 P.2d 613 (1994).

A two-tier statutory scheme that allows afactual determination, made at an initial civil hearing, to be presented as a judicial fact to a jury in a subsequent criminal proceeding violates a criminal defendant's right to a jury trial. Soundgarden v. Eikenberry, 123 Wn.2d 750, 775, 871P.2d1050, cert, denied, 513 U.S. 1056 (1994).

The transfer of an action to mandatory arbitration, following which an aggrieved party may obtain a trial de novo, does not violate the aggrieved party's right to a...