Washington Supreme Court· 1/6/1989

Kreidler v. Eikenberry

Citations

766 P.2d 438
111 Wash. 2d 828

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that interest in finality of elections requires strict construction of statute barring appeal of trial court decision
recognizing “the court’s ‘constitutional power of review cannot be abridged by legislative enactment.’ ”
recognizing \the court's `constitutional power of review cannot be abridged by legislative enactment.'\
denying application for writ because applicants could have intervened in the proceedings before the superior court
denying application for writ because applicants could have intervened in the proceedings before the superior court
applying reasoning of Hatfield in holding that superior court’s decision on review of initiative ballot title is not reviewable in light of statute making court’s decision “final”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Utter, Andersen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.