Opinion ID: 1194845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discretion of Courts as to Writ

Text: Second, issuance of the constitutional writ of certiorari is never as of right; it is always discretionary with the court. North Bend Stage Line v. Department of Public Works, 170 Wash. 217, 226, 16 P.2d 206 (1932); State v. Kay, 164 Wash. 685, 688-89, 4 P.2d 498 (1931) (statutory writ); State v. Lockhart, 18 Wash. 531, 535, 52 P. 315 (1898) (common law writ); FORREST G. FERRIS & FORREST G. FERRIS, JR., THE LAW OF EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL REMEDIES § 160, AT 181 (1926). Here, the question presented on this record is not whether the court below had power to grant the writ but whether in the light of all the circumstances the case was an appropriate one for the exercise of that power. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 25-26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943). In this case, as a matter of judicial restraint, the Court should respect the prerogative and policy determination of the legislative branch, and exercise its discretion not to intervene in a matter the Legislature specifically and particularly contemplated as not being amenable to review by courts. [8] The majority's decision here opens the door for interlocutory challenges at all stages of the SEPA process by any party to that process. All one has to do is clang the bell of arbitrary and capricious decision making, and like the fire horses of old, Washington courts may now come charging out, writ of certiorari in hand, to douse the flames. There are no restraints or constraints to the majority's approach. Our courts will indeed become land use review boards. See RRI Realty Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Southampton, 870 F.2d 911, 918 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S.Ct. 240, 107 L.Ed.2d 191 (1989). [9]