State v. Adams
| Citation | 107 Wn.2d 611,732 P.2d 149 |
| Decision Date | 05 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 52293-6,52293-6 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | , 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1656 STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Terry ADAMS; Lucas Aguirre; Frederick Ernest Allen; Gerald W. Althauser; Annette L. Anderson; John G. Anderson; Robert R. Anderson; Roger D. Anderson; Cleo O. Andrews; Myron H. Antijunti; Larry D. Atwood; Ruth M. Avey; Wayne J. Baardson; Gregory C. Ballard; Thad M. Bangert; Felipe S. Barrientes; Nancy L. Barrientes; Vernon H. Barter; Jerel D. Beardslee; William Will Beasley; Donald E. Becker; William H. Becker; Steve M. Bednar, Jr.; Robert F. Benning; Mank W. Benson; Mearl E. Bergren; Clyde L. Berline; Gail E. Berry; Ronald R. Bircher; David Bise; Howard R. Black; Steven A. Black; Earl L. Bogle; Robert S. Bond; Elmer F. Boone, Jr.; William G. Bordner; David N. Bowen; Verlina B. Bradford; Jeffrey Bradshaw; Walter W. Branca; Kenneth J. Breeden; Robert D. Broderius; Donald C. Brown; Lawrence G. Buchanan; Fred Joseph Buckenmeyer; Barbara Louise Buehler; Edward H. Bullion; Gordon J. Burlingame; Monte L. Butler; William L. Butterfield; Gregory A. Byrd; Donald Robert Camp; John Wesley Campbell; Antonio L. Cantu; Dennis E. Carlson; Jeffrey J. Carlson; Gordon W. Carpenter; Gene L. Carpine; Duane Nelson Catract; David John Cenotto; Robert M. Cernick; Donald L. Chapman; D. Winslow Charlton; Gerald Dale Chase; Albert L. Chesterman, Jr.; Mark W. Christie; Gail D. Clark; Russell E. Clark; Frank Claunch; Gary Lee Clemensen; Robert J. Clouse; Reginald J. Cody; A. Paull Collins; Robert A. Connery; George D. Cooper; Gerald E. Cooper; Norman C. Crampton; Fern D. Cranwell; Cyril W. Crotteau; Donald Miles Cuvelier; James L. Dahlquist; Frank Wallace Daniels; Randall P. Darlington; David G. Davis, Jr.; Max Samuel Daweritz; William Charles Devine; Gary Wayne Dickinson; Robert F. Dingui; Dan R. Dittrich; Wayne E. Dotson; William J. Duckett; Lawrence Eugene Dudley; Jacque R. Dumas; Donald A. Dunbar; Harold L. Edmiston; A.N. Egbert; Leona L. Einman; Beverly A. Eisele; Ernest Dale Ellard; Donald L. Ells; Donald S. Ely; Rex G. |
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Spencer W. Daniels, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for appellant.
Richard D. Eadie, Edmonds, Swanson, Parr, Cordes, Younglove, Peeples & Wyckoff, P.S., Douglas P. Wyckoff, Olympia, for respondents.
Quaere: What is the appropriate procedure for the State to recover alleged overpayments of salary previously made to State employees?
The trial court held that the State may not effect recovery by summarily deducting amounts from the employees' future paychecks, but instead must file a civil action seeking a money judgment in the amount of the alleged overpayments. The trial court further held that the State's present declaratory judgment action did not seek such a money judgment and dismissed the action, requiring the State to file a new action if it wishes to collect the claimed overpayments. We affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold that the State must file a civil action for a money judgment, but that the present action sufficiently seeks such relief. We remand to the trial court for a determination of the amounts claimed to have been overpaid to each state employee named in this action.
The defendants in this case were employees of the State Department of Transportation ("the Department") between July 1981 and January 1983. Pursuant to former WAC 356-15-060, they were entitled to a "shift differential" premium of 20 cents per hour for working evening or night shifts. The State Personnel Board had proposed an increase in the shift premium to 40 cents per hour, but the Legislature never approved such an increase. However, the Department, anticipating that the increase would be approved, programmed its payroll computer to pay the 40-cent per hour rate beginning on July 1, 1981. The Department did not detect this error until January 1983, when it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
West v. City of Tacoma
...sought is sufficient. CR 8(a). Pleadings are to be liberally construed to allow for a decision on the merits. State v. Adams , 107 Wash.2d 611, 620, 732 P.2d 149 (1987). Complaints that fail to give the opposing party fair notice of the claim asserted are insufficient. Pac. Nw. Shooting Par......
-
Kramarevcky v. Department of Social and Health Services
...application of estoppel. The Department also argued its acts of overpaying benefits should be deemed ultra vires under State v. Adams, 107 Wash.2d 611, 732 P.2d 149 (1987), thus precluding any application of the doctrine of equitable The Superior Court issued a memorandum opinion ruling in ......
-
Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia, P.L.L.C. (In re Estate of Dormaier), s. 30864–2–III, 30864–1–III.
...is entitled to relief.” CR 8(a). We construe a complaint liberally so as to do substantial justice. CR 8(f); State v. Adams, 107 Wash.2d 611, 620, 732 P.2d 149 (1987). “If a complaint states facts entitling the plaintiff to some relief, it is immaterial by what name the action is called.” A......
-
Boudreaux v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 78284-3-I
...Weyerhaeuser’s motion as a CR 12(b)(6) motion or denied the CR 12(b)(1) motion as failing on its merits. See e.g., State v. Adams, 107 Wash.2d 611, 620, 732 P.2d 149 (1987) (considering pleadings on their facts, not their titles); Colo. Nat’l Bank of Denver v. Merlino, 35 Wash. App. 610, 61......