Norman v. Chelan County Public Hosp. Dist. No. 1
| Decision Date | 15 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 49414-2,49414-2 |
| Citation | 100 Wn.2d 633,673 P.2d 189 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Roy NORMAN and Lucia Norman, husband and wife, and Roy Norman, as Guardian ad litem for Barbara Norman, a minor, Respondents, v. CHELAN COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1, dba Cascade General Hospital; Marvin E. Speer, M.D., et ux.; John J. Koenig, M.D., et ux.; James C. Haley, M.D., et ux.; Donald L. Volkmann, M.D., et ux., dba Cascade Clinic, a partnership; and Donald B. Fager, M.D., Defendants, John Doe, Administrator of the Estate of Victor Gehring, M.D., deceased, Petitioner. |
Gavin, Robinson, Kendrick, Redman & Mays, William H. Mays, J. Tappan Menard, Yakima, for petitioner.
Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward, Susan Cawley, James M. Danielson, Wenatchee, for respondents Koenig.
Halverson, Applegate & McDonald, Walter G. Meyer, G. Brian Paxton, Yakima, for respondents Speer.
Daniel F. Sullivan & Assoc., Phillip Offenbacker, Seattle, for respondents Norman.
This is a medical malpractice action. Two issues were accepted by this court on direct review: (1) whether the claim by a minor against a deceased tort-feasor must be filed with the estate within 18 months after the date of first publication of notice to creditors as provided by RCW 11.40.011; and (2) whether claims for indemnity arising out of transactions prior to the death of the decedent, but which do not become claims until after the death of the decedent, are barred by the nonclaim statutes, RCW 11.40.010 and RCW 11.40.011, if they are not filed within the statutory time limits.
Subsequent to the acceptance of certification of this case from the Court of Appeals, the court was advised the matter had been settled, at least among the parties to this review. Even though it was moot and a motion for termination of review was before the court, at the urging of the parties (including the moving party), the case was heard.
The rule on whether this court should consider moot questions was set forth in Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wash.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972):
It is a general rule that, where only moot questions or abstract propositions are involved, or where the substantial questions involved in the trial court no longer exist, the appeal, or writ of error, should be dismissed. There is an exception to the above stated proposition. The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, retain and decide an appeal which has otherwise become moot when it can be said that matters of continuing and substantial public interest are involved. Criteria to be considered in determining the "requisite degree of public interest are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC
...n. 50, 159 P.3d 460. We hold that Satomi is moot because the parties have settled their dispute. Norman v. Chelan County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 100 Wash.2d 633, 634, 673 P.2d 189 (1983) (case rendered moot by settlement among the parties). ¶ 17 "As a general rule, this court will not revie......
-
Gronquist v. State
...rule, Washington appellate courts will not address “moot questions or abstract propositions.” Norman v. Chelan County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 100 Wash.2d 633, 635, 673 P.2d 189 (1983) (quoting Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wash.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972)). An appeal is moot where it pres......
-
Gronquist v. State
...general rule, Washington appellate courts will not address "moot questions or abstract propositions." Norman v. Chelan County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 100 Wn.2d 633, 635,673 P.2d 189 (1983) (quoting Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972)). An appeal is moot where it p......
-
Woolery v. State
... ... STATE OF WASHINGTON and SPOKANE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of ... delay" [ 1 ] under article I, section 10 of the state ... safeguards already exist to ensure public participation in ... the court funding ... Norman v. Chelan County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 , 100 ... ...