Opinion No. 72-230 (1972) Ag

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that “the State must attempt to collect LFOs from an offender before the offender can be considered ‘aggrieved.’”
• interpreting similar language in RCW 10.01.160(4) regarding the remission of LFOs
• person denied access to prison classes and classification advances can be “aggrieved” even if State has not attempted to enforce payment of LFOs
• “Mandatory LFOs are not ‘costs’ under RCW 10.01.160(1) and (2), and therefore, they are not subject to a motion to remit under RCW 10.01.160(4).”
• granting discretionary review of remission ruling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).