Court Opinion

ID: 9793187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:09.472768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:42.494685
License: Public Domain

Ringold, J.
(concurring) — I concur, and add emphasis to one aspect of this case. As my brother Judge Williams demonstrates there is substantial evidence to support the findings. Though many opinions mistake and misapply Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 575, 343 P.2d 183 (1959), the precise holding is to the point here:
The findings are amply sustained by the proofs. If we were of the opinion that the trial court should have resolved the factual dispute the other way, the constitution does not authorize this court to substitute its findings for that of the trial court.
The appellate role in the judicial process was recently restated:
Our function begins and ends with ascertaining whether the challenged finding of fact, as entered by the trial, court, is supported by substantial evidence and, if so, whether the findings as a whole sustain the challenged conclusions of law.
In re Kier, 21 Wn. App. 836, 840, 587 P.2d 592 (1978).