Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

King Cy. Rep. Comm. v. State Comm

79 Wn. 2d 202 (Wash. 1971)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
King Cy. Rep. Comm. v. State Comm

7 Citing cases

  1. Marchioro v. Chaney

    90 Wn. 2d 298 (Wash. 1978)   Cited 24 times
    Upholding similar state statute under state equal rights amendment

    RCW 29.42.020 establishes state committees as integral parts of the party organization. King County Republican Cent. Comm. v. Republican State Comm., 79 Wn.2d 202, 211, 484 P.2d 387 (1971). It also enumerates certain powers of the state committee and provides for a meeting in January of each odd-numbered year.

  2. State v. O'Connell

    83 Wn. 2d 797 (Wash. 1974)   Cited 83 times
    In O'Connell, from which the above language stems, the Washington Supreme Court decided a case in which the trial court had denied motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving "the verdict of the jury... before us, reinforced by the trial judge's approval, or, if not approval, his recognition that there is no reason why the verdict should be set aside."

    The reasons why we adopted this rule, which is not a new one, are set forth in Porter v. Chicago, M., St. P. P.R.R., 41 Wn.2d 836, 252 P.2d 306 (1953), and need not be repeated here. In their reply brief, the appellants urge that the Popovich case is not controlling and that King County Republican Cent. Comm. v. Republican State Comm., 79 Wn.2d 202, 207-08, 484 P.2d 387 (1971), governs the disposition of the question presented in this case. There this court reviewed a summary judgment proceeding, even though the record considered by the trial court was belatedly certified.

  3. Marchioro v. Chaney

    442 U.S. 191 (1979)   Cited 38 times
    In Marchioro, the State of Washington attempted to require that the state central committee be composed in a representative fashion.

    Charter, Art. V (F)(5), App. 15.King County Republican Central Committee v. Republican State Committee, 79 Wn.2d 202, 211-212, 484 P.2d 387, 392 (1971). See also 90 Wn.2d 298, 313, 582 P.2d 487, 496 (1978) (case below).

  4. Millikan v. Board of Directors

    92 Wn. 2d 213 (Wash. 1979)   Cited 13 times

    No compelling circumstances justified dismissal of the instant case. In addition, the dismissal was contrary to King County Republican Central Comm. v. Republican State Comm., 79 Wn.2d 202, 484 P.2d 387 (1971), a case which illustrates the flexibility RAP 1.2 requires. There respondent King County Republican Central Committee moved for dismissal of the appeal on the same ground argued herein.

  5. McClarty v. Totem Elec

    119 Wn. App. 453 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 11 times
    Noting that while a decision from Division One was not binding authority, it "can still be persuasive"

    Our Supreme Court has interpreted RAP 1.2 to mean that courts can depart from the rules if there is "'no discernible or practical prejudice flowing to respondent, no unfairness to the trial judge, and no inconvenience to [the] court.'" Millikan v. Bd. of Dirs. of Everett Sch. Dist. No. 2, 92 Wn.2d 213, 216, 595 P.2d 533 (1979) (quoting King County Republican Cent. Comm. v. Republican State Comm., 79 Wn.2d 202, 208, 484 P.2d 387 (1971) (allowing appellants to file certification of facts after required deadline)).

  6. Washam v. Democratic Cent. Comm

    69 Wn. App. 453 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 8 times

    [7] In conclusion, we find no error by the trial court. In upholding its ruling we are mindful of the general proposition that courts should be slow to interfere in the internal affairs of political parties in the absence of a clear statutory violation, see King Cy. Republican Cent. Comm. v. Republican State Comm., 79 Wn.2d 202, 208, 484 P.2d 387 (1971). We cannot say that there was such a violation here.

  7. Triplett v. Dairyland Ins. Co.

    532 P.2d 1177 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    [W]e find no discernible or practical prejudice flowing to respondent, no unfairness to the trial judge, and no inconvenience to this court . . .King County Republican Central Comm. v. Republican State Comm., 79 Wn.2d 202, 208, 484 P.2d 387 (1971). Therefore, we conclude that this appeal should not be dismissed and that this court may proceed as it has, to reach a decision upon the merits.