State v. Superior Court for Yakima County
| Decision Date | 02 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | 15568. |
| Citation | 185 P. 628,108 Wash. 636 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. MEAD v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR YAKIMA COUNTY. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Application for a writ of prohibition by the State of Washington on the relation of F. A. Mead against the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Yakima County. Peremptory writ denied, and alternative writ quashed.
Reynolds Ballinger & Hutson, of Seattle, for plaintiff.
The relator, F. A. Mead, prays for a writ of this court prohibiting Hon. Harcourt M. Taylor, one of the judges of the superior court of Yakima county, from presiding at the hearing of a certain cause pending in the court named, and to compel him to transfer the proceedings to another department of the court for such hearing.
Judge Taylor presides over the juvenile department of the superior court of Yakima county. In January, 1919, a petition was filed with the clerk of the superior court of the county named, showing that there was within that county in the custody of Lish Worrel and Lula Worrel, his wife, one Frederick A. Mead, some three years of age, who was a dependent child, praying that the superior court deal with such child as provided in the juvenile court law. Proceedings were had necessary to bring the interested parties before the court, and a hearing entered upon, at the conclusion of which the court found that the child was a dependent child within the meaning of the law cited, and that the welfare of the child demanded that it be continued in the custody of Worrel and wife, and entered an order to the effect that the child be continued in their possession until the further order of the court.
On August 7, 1919, the relator petitioned the superior court for a modification of the order relating to the custody of the child, setting forth in the petition that he was the father of the child and a suitable and proper person to have its care and custody. On filing the petition the relator applied to the court, Judge Taylor presiding, for an order directed to the persons having the custody of the child to show cause on a day certain why the order awarding them such custody should not be modified and an order entered in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The presiding judge on the presentation of the petition to him expressed a doubt whether the petition alleged facts sufficient prima facie to justify the relief asked, but after hearing counsel granted the order, fixing August 19, 1919, as the day upon which the application would be heard. On the return day fixed the attorney for the relator filed an affidavit under sections 209-1 and 209-2 of the Code (Rem.), asking a transfer of the cause to another department of the court for trial, averring in the language of the statute that the judge before whom the cause was assigned for hearing was prejudiced against the relator, so that he believed he could not have a fair trial before such judge. The request for a transfer was denied by the court on the ground that the application came too late, whereupon the relator applied to this court for the writ before mentioned.
Relative to the transfer of causes under the statute cited this court has held that the fact of prejudice when suggested in the form prescribed is not a matter of inquiry; that the fact is established by the statutory affidavit, and that when the application is timely made it must be granted as matter of right. We have further held that the timeliness of the application is to be tested by the status...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spokane Cnty. Dist. Court
...The record shows that the State handed the superior court no law concerning the necessity defense.¶ 94 In State ex rel. Mead v. Superior Court , 108 Wash. 636, 185 P. 628 (1919), a decision on which the superior court relied, the Supreme Court ruled that an order to show cause is a discreti......
-
Wade v. State
...for writs of prohibition, see State ex rel. De Bit v. Superior Court, 1918, 103 Wash. 183, 173 P. 1014; State ex rel. Mead v. Superior Court, 1919, 108 Wash. 636, 185 P. 628; In re Hudson, 1942, 13 Wash.2d 673, 126 P.2d 765. For instances of review by writs of certiorari, see State ex rel. ......
-
State v. Parra
...court may either grant or deny a party's request. Rhinehart, 51 Wash.App. at 578, 754 P.2d 1243 (citing State ex rel. Mead v. Superior Court, 108 Wash. 636, 640, 185 P. 628 (1919)). Applying this definition to the facts, the Court of Appeals in that case held that the two orders required an......
-
In re Sheley's Estate.Sheley v. Shafer.
...by the legislature, unless a contrary intention clearly appears in the statute conferring the jurisdiction.” In State v. Superior Court, 108 Wash. 636, 185 P. 628, 630, the court, in discussing a transfer of a cause under a statute, said: “The statute grants the power, but is silent as to t......
-
§40.6 Analysis
...trial all constitute rulings involving the exercise of discretion. The Rhinehart court cited State v.Superior Court for Yakima Cnty., 108 Wash. 636,185 P. 628 (1919), in support of the general proposition that the exercise of discretion is not involved when a certain action or result follow......