§83.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§83.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

Barrett-Smithv.Barrett-Smith,llOWn.App. 87,38 P.3d 1030(2002) (local rule on private pro tem judges held to be ineffective).

Bullock v.Roberts, 84 Wn.2d 101, 524P.2d385 (1974) (discretionary ruling in a number of related cases does not constitute a local rule).

Fernandes v. Mockridge, 75 Wn.App. 207,877P.2d719 (1994), review denied, 126 Wn.2d 1005 (1995) (local rule in conflict with Mandatory Arbitration Rules is invalid; superior courthas discretion to waive rules and look beyond pleadings to see if case meets criteria for arbitration).

Hanno v.Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd., 67 Wn.App. 681,838 P.2d 1144 (1992) (scheduling order issued mechanically in every case is not a discretionary ruling that precludes an affidavit of prejudice).

Harbor Enters., Inc. v. Gudjonsson, 116 Wn.2d 283, 803 P.2d 798 (1991) (local rule restricting right to file affidavit of prejudice was invalid as inconsistent with right to file affidavit granted by RCW 4.12.050).

Heaney v. Seattle Mun. Court, 35 Wn.App. 150, 665 P.2d 918 (1983), review denied, 101 Wn.2d 1004 (1984) (local rule is not invalid as inconsistent with civil rules unless the rules are so antithetical that both cannot be effective as matter of law; interpreting JCrR 3.08 to conflict with a local rule).

Hessler Constr. Co. v. Looney, 52 Wn.App. 110, 757 P.2d 988, review denied, lllWn.2d 1029 (1988) (local rule requiring service of summary judgment motion on civil motions coordinator as prerequisite to consideration by trial court was invalid as inconsistent with CR 5(d)(2)).

In re Marriage ofHennemann, 69 Wn.App. 345, 848P.2d760 (1993) (scheduling order issued mechanically in every case, pursuant to a local rule, is not a discretionary ruling that precludes an affidavit of prejudice).

Lemon v. Lemon, 118 Wn.2d 422, 823P.2d1100 (1992) (local rule imposing greater restrictions on...