Edward M. Connelly

The case involved a pedestrian, Mrs. Ferguson, who was struck by a city bus at an intersection in Seattle and brought a personal injury action against the city. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict in her favor, but the majority of the state supreme court reversed. The dissenting opinion contended that the evidence, including the husband's testimony as interpreted by the trial judge showing she was in the marked crosswalk, medical evidence of memory loss supporting a presumption of due care, and circumstantial evidence from the condition of her shoes and stockings, indicated she had the right of way under traffic statutes and that negligence questions were properly for the jury to resolve in her favor.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a widow seeking industrial compensation benefits after her husband was injured on November 12, 1942, in an extrahazardous job and died on December 4, 1942. The Department of Labor and Industries applied the compensation schedule from the law in effect at the time of the injury rather than a later amendment effective December 3, 1942, which provided higher payments. The superior court initially entered a default judgment for the plaintiff using the new rates but later vacated it and ruled in favor of the department. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the amendment applies only prospectively to injuries occurring after its effective date, consistent with prior precedent, and that vacating the default was proper given the department's meritorious defense.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned the constitutionality under the state constitution of a statute creating an interstate cooperation commission to allow state officials to work with counterparts in other states on matters of shared governmental interest. The court held the statute invalid. In this opinion concurring in the dissent, the justice noted that twenty-eight other states had established similar commissions, stressed that the legislation served a beneficial purpose of promoting efficient interstate cooperation without regard to salary or staffing details, and explained that judges may not invalidate an act unless convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of its unconstitutionality.

federal power

This case concerns Colonel Robert V. Laughlin's petition for a writ of certiorari seeking admission to the Washington State Bar without examination, based on his U.S. Army legal experience including work in the Judge Advocate division. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Governors of the State Bar Association has no power to admit applicants to practice, as that authority is an inherent judicial function belonging exclusively to the court. The court denied the application, holding that Laughlin's military service did not meet the requirements of the court's rules for admission on motion, which demand active and actual practice as a member of the bar of the highest court in another jurisdiction. The decision rested on precedents establishing that while statutes may regulate bar admissions, they cannot remove the court's inherent power to control who may practice law.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Brown, two defendants convicted of first-degree murder and robbery in Washington state court and sentenced to death appealed their convictions after their appointed counsel failed to pay the required five-dollar filing fees or perfect the appeals within the ninety-day period set by court Rule 12. The appeals had been dismissed for these procedural defaults, which occurred despite the defendants proceeding in forma pauperis and delays in receiving the statement of facts from the court reporter. The court reinstated the appeals, holding that Rule 12's strict filing-fee and timeliness requirements do not apply to capital cases or in forma pauperis appeals, and that the rule-making power could be exercised to suspend the rule in death-penalty matters to allow the appeals to proceed. The decision emphasized that the rule's jurisdictional language conditioning appeals on fee payment has no application in pauper cases and that capital cases warrant an exception to avoid barring review.

criminal lawprocedure

State v. Hart was a criminal case in which the prosecution introduced testimony from a husband repeating out-of-court statements made by his deceased wife. The dissenting justice argued that this evidence exceeded the limits of the hearsay exception recognized in State v. Power and that the trial judge improperly commented on the evidence by sarcastically describing the autopsy surgeon’s testimony as an “organ recital” before the jury. The majority implicitly rejected these objections by allowing the evidence and the trial to stand, and a subsequent petition for rehearing was denied.

criminal lawprocedure