In re Guardianship of Cobb

16 Citing cases

  1. Evans v. Duvey (In re Evans)

    491 P.3d 218 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Even so, the three-prong test in Cobb applies whether or not the termination decree was vacated because Desiree seeks to assert a third party's constitutional rights. See Cobb, 172 Wash. App. at 401, 292 P.3d 772 (holding that "a person lacks standing to vindicate the constitutional rights of a third party" unless they satisfy the three-part test). ¶11 "Standing is a question of law, which we review de novo."

  2. In re The Adoption of Evans

    No. 81815-5-I (Wash. Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "Standing is a question of law, which we review de novo." In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wn.App. 393, 401, 292 P.3d 772 (2012). "In general, a person lacks standing to vindicate the constitutional rights of a third party."

  3. In re Decker

    188 Wn. App. 429 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 21 times
    Applying the same principle in the context of an attorney fees award in guardianship proceedings

    ¶ 36 It is a general rule that “a person lacks standing to vindicate the constitutional rights of a third party.” In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wash.App. 393, 401, 292 P.3d 772 (2012). But a litigant may have standing where (1) he or she “has suffered an injury-in-fact, giving him or her a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the disputed issue; (2) [he or she] has a close relationship to the third party; and (3) there exists some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests.

  4. In re Guardianship of Russell

    10 Wn. App. 2d 1012 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019)

    Decker, 188 Wn.App. at 445 (former attorney of incapacitated person in guardianship case did not have standing to vindicate her due process rights); In re Guardianshipof Cobb, 172 Wn.App. 393, 402, 292 P.3d 772 (2012), review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1017 (2013) (siblings of incapacitated person lacked standing to vindicate incapacitated person's constitutional rights). Because Earl lacks standing to raise issues on behalf of Cheryl or Holly, we do not consider any assignment of error on this basis.

  5. In re Estate of Primiani

    No. 34200-0-III (Wash. Ct. App. May. 2, 2017)

    "An appearance of fairness claim is not 'constitutional' in nature under RAP 2.5(a)(3) and, thus, may not be raised for the first time on appeal." In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wn.App. 393, 404, 292 P.3d 772 (2012); see also City of Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd., 90 Wn.2d 856, 863, 586 P.2d 470 (1978) ("Our appearance of fairness doctrine, though related to concerns dealing with due process considerations, is not constitutionally based."). Frank never objected at the hearing to the estate's reliance on Jepsen, 184 Wn.2d 376, nor does the record show he ever objected to the trial court's refusal to consider his supplemental brief.

  6. In re M.L.W.

    No. 102486-0 (Wash. Nov. 14, 2024)

    426-27; see also In re Guardianship of Decker, 188 Wn.App. 429, 353 P.3d 669 (2015) (litigant did not establish hindrance to incapacitated person's ability to represent her own interests, where incapacitated person had appointed guardian and litigant did not allege guardian was inadequate to protect person's interests); In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wn.App. 393, 292 P.3d 772 (2012) (same). And logically, no hindrance exists if "'the third party actually asserts his own rights.'"

  7. In re Cobb

    304 P.3d 114 (Wash. 2013)

    In re the Guardianship of Sean CobbAppeal From: 40598–9–II, 172 Wash.App. 393, 292 P.3d 772 Petition For Review: Denied.

  8. In re Vulnerable Adult Petition for Marion Cox

    No. 39134-5-III (Wash. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2024)

    "A litigant purporting to vindicate a third party's constitutional rights bears the burden of demonstrating that 'the allegedly injured third party lacks the ability to vindicate [their] rights.'" In re Guardianship of Decker, 188 Wn.App. 429, 445, 353 P.3d 669 (2015) (quoting In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wn.App. 393, 403, 292 P.3d 772 (2012)).

  9. Jovee v. Child Advocacy Ctr. of Snohomish Cnty. at Dawson Place

    No. 82171-7-I (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022)

    An appearance of fairness claim is not constitutional in nature under RAP 2.5(a)(3), so it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. In re Guardianship of Cobb, 172 Wn.App. 393, 404, 292 P.3d 772 (2012) (" 'Our appearance of fairness doctrine, though related to concerns dealing with due process consideration[s], is not constitutionally based.' ")

  10. In re Dependency of B.W.K.

    5 Wn. App. 2d 1052 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Because the appearance of fairness doctrine is not constitutional in nature, we do not consider the argument for the first time on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3); In re Guardianship of Cobb. 172 Wn.App. 393, 404, 292 P.3d 772 (2012); State v. Morgensen, 148 Wn.App. 81, 90-91, 197 P.3d 715 (2008). The federal authorities she cites do not address whether appearance of fairness claims are of sufficient constitutional magnitude to be raised for the first time on appeal.