Court Opinion

ID: 9625632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:46:21.102228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:12.372963
License: Public Domain

Munson, J.
(dissenting)—I have empathy for the majority’s rationale, particularly in view of Memel v. Reimer, 85 Wn.2d 685, 538 P.2d 517 (1975); Moore v. Burdman, 84 Wn.2d 408, 526 P.2d 893 (1974); Malott v. Randall, 83 Wn.2d 259, 517 P.2d 605 (1974); Myers v. Harris, 82 Wn.2d 152, 509 P.2d 656 (1973); O’Connor v. Matzdorff, 76 Wn.2d 589, 458 P.2d 154 (1969), where the Supreme Court has evidenced a tendency to waive or liberalize construction of procedural rules. That court has not seen fit, however, to take that approach to the rules applicable to appeals from district court. State v. Sodorff, 84 Wn.2d 888, 529 P.2d 1066 (1975); State v. Carmody, 75 Wn.2d 615, 452 P.2d 959 (1969).
JCrR 6.03(b) having not been met, i.e., noted for trial within 20 days after filing of the transcript, I would affirm.
Petition for rehearing denied March 22,1976.
Appealed to Supreme Court April 1,1976.