State ex rel. Gebenini v. Wright
Decision Date | 15 December 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 32637,32637 |
Citation | 264 P.2d 1091,43 Wn.2d 829 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. GEBENINI, v. WRIGHT. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Brodie, Brodie & Fristoe, E. A. Philbrick, Olympia, for petitioner.
Don Eastvold, Olympia, E. Albert Morrison, Tacoma, for respondent.
Petitioner, a member of the Wasbington State Patrol, seeks review by a writ of certiorari of the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to his petition for a writ of prohibition directed to the chief of the Washington State Patrol. Upon his failure to plead further, the court dismissed his petition with prejudice.
Respondent moves to quash the writ of certiorari.
Review by writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy provided by statute. Rem.Rev.Stat. § 1002, cf. RCW 7.16.040. Its issuance is, to some extent, discretionary. First National Bank of Everett v. Tiffany, 1952, 40 Wash.2d 193, 195, 242 P.2d 169; North Bend Stage Line v. Dept. of Public Works, 1932, 170 Wash. 217, 16 P.2d 206; State ex rel. Wilson v. Kay, 1931, 164 Wash. 685, 687, 4 P.2d 498.
Petitioner's affidavit, filed in support of the issuance of the writ, presents a question of the adequacy of appeal in this matter. There is merit to petitioner's claim that he would be irreparably damaged had he sought review by appeal. Under the circumstances, the motion to quash the writ of certiorari is denied.
June 10, 1953, the petitioner was served with an interoffice communication entitled 'Notice of Suspension' from the chief of the Washington State Patrol. It read in part:
* * *'(Italics ours.)
No formal charges were ever filed under the terms of this notice. July 11, 1953, petitioner returned to duty. On that day, he was served with another interoffice communication entitled 'Notice of Suspension.' It was identical with the first notice served except for the date suspension commenced. In addition, however, he was served with written notice and complaint of the charges preferred against him.
The complaint alleged: that he had appeared in public, while on duty, attired in an improper uniform and unshaven; that his uniform and equipment had not been kept up to the standard prescribed by rules and regulations; that for some months he had failed to submit daily reports promptly and regularly, as required; that for some months he had expressed verbally his dissatisfaction with the operation of the patrol to people other than those in authority; that he had engaged in public political discussions and engaged actively in political organizations during the fall of 1952; and that he had been guilty of disobedience on several described occasions, all contrary to the rules and regulations of the Washington State Patrol.
July 16, 1953, the superior court issued an alternative writ of prohibition directed to the chief of the Washington State Patrol prohibiting him from holding a public hearing upon the charges as provided in the notice and statute.
July 27, 1953, the superior court sustained a demurrer to the petition for writ of prohibition and dismissed the action.
These facts must be considered in the light of the statutes applicable.
Laws of 1943, chapter 205, § 1, Rem.Sup. 1943, § 6362-66, RCW 43.43.050.
Laws of 1943, chapter 205, § 2, Rem.Sup.1943, § 6362-67, cf. RCW 43.43.060.
Laws of 1943, chapter 205, § 3, Rem.Sup. 1943, § 6362-68, cf. RCW 43.43.070.
Laws of 1943, chapter 205, § 4, Rem.Sup. 1943, § 6362-69, cf. RCW 43.43.080.
Laws of 1943, chapter 205, § 5, Rem.Sup. 1943, § 6362-70, cf. RCW 43.43.090.
Laws of 1943, chapter 205, § 6, Rem.Sup. 1943, § 6362-71, cf. RCW 43.43.100.
* * *'
Laws of 1943, chapter 205, § 7, Rem.Sup. 1943, § 6362-72, cf. RCW 43.43.110.
Petitioner's entire argument stems from the claim that the quoted statutes give the chief of the Washington State Patrol a choice of two separate methods of discipline. Petitioner urges that these two methods of discipline, as they appear in § 2, supra, and § 3, supra, are mutually exclusive; that by first proceeding under § 2, the chief now exceeds his authority in attempting to proceed under § 3 of the statute and should be prohibited from so doing.
With this we cannot agree.
The statutes are clear and unambiguous. They need no interpretation. The chief is given sufficient power and authority to administer the discipline required to maintain the standards of the patrol. Under § 2 of the statute, he may suspend a member for not more than thirty days. There is nothing in the statutes which indicate that such a suspension is inconsistent with the possibility of having written charges preferred at a later date, which might result in suspension for more than thirty days, or in demotion, or in discharge.
The statutes do not require the chief to make an election of one method of discipline to the exclusion of the other. This becomes more apparent upon a brief analysis of certain disciplinary problems which may arise. For example, a member of the patrol may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CITY of SEATTLE v. The Honorable George W. HOLIFIELD
...remedial step. II. Writ of Review ¶ 17 A writ of review is an extraordinary remedy granted by statute, State ex rel. Gebenini v. Wright, 43 Wash.2d 829, 830, 264 P.2d 1091 (1953). It “should be granted sparingly.” City of Seattle v. Williams, 101 Wash.2d 445, 455, 680 P.2d 1051 (1984). We r......
-
King County v. Washington State Bd. of Tax Appeals
...for extraordinary situations. See Oliver v. American Motors Corp., 70 Wash.2d 875, 425 P.2d 647 (1967); State ex rel. Gebenini v. Wright, 43 Wash.2d 829, 264 P.2d 1091 (1953). No extraordinary situation was present in these cases. Furthermore, the legislature's purpose in establishing the B......
-
City of Seattle v. Keene
...790 (1983) (with application for statutory writ of review, petitioner must supply material designating errors of law). 34. 43 Wash.2d 829, 264 P.2d 1091 (1953). 35. Gebenini, 43 Wash.2d 36. 83 Wash.2d 429, 518 P.2d 1078 (1974). 37. Bushman, 83 Wash.2d at 432, 518 P.2d 1078. 38. 69 Wash.2d 2......
-
King County v. Martin, No. 55838-2-I (WA 3/27/2006)
...by Ch. 7.16 RCW. Odegaard v. Everett School Dist. No. 2, 55 Wn. App. 685, 687, 780 P.2d 260 (1989) (citing State ex. rel. Gebenini v. Wright, 43 Wn.2d 829, 830, 264 P.2d 1091 (1953). Seattle v. Williams, 101 Wn.2d 445, 454, 680 P.2d 1051 (1984). A statutory writ will issue only if the statu......