Waples v. Yi (2010)

Gerace, 65 V.I. at 303 ; see also Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 , 486- 487 (Ariz. 2009) (“Although we have occasionally said that procedural rulemaking power is vested ‘exclusively’ in this Court, this statement is in some respects an oversimplification. . . . [I]t is more accurate to say that the legislature and this Court both have rulemaking power, but that in the event of irreconcilable conflict between a procedural statute and a rule, the rule prevails.”); Hickson v…

See, e.g., Hickson v. State, 316 Ark. 783 , 875 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1994) (“Statutes are given deference only to the extent that they are compatible with our rules, and conflicts which compromise these rules are resolved with our rules remaining supreme.” (citing State v. Sypult, 304 Ark. 5 , 800 S.W.2d 402, 404 (1990))); State v. Griffith, 97 Idaho 52 , 539 P.2d 604, 610 (1975) (“[A]s part of the rule-making power possessed by this Court,... the Court may by rule ... make inap…

Putman held that the certificate of merit requirement unduly impaired the right of access to the courts because it required parties to present evidence that might be impossible to develop without discovery.23 The court held that the requirement to file a certificate of merit violated the separation of powers doctrine because it conflicted with CR 8 and 11 regarding pleading requirements and thereby encroached on the judiciary's power to establish court rules.24 The court sta…

Putman, 166 Wn.2d at 977-78 ; see also Waples v. Yi, 169 Wn.2d 152 , 234 P.3d 187 (2010) (holding 90-day notice requirement in the same statute unconstitutional because it conflicts with the commencement requirement of CR 3(a) thereby conflicting with the judiciary’s power to set court procedures.) Putman, 166 Wn.2d at 979-80 .

See Waples v. Yi, 169 Wn.2d 152, 162-63 , 234 P.3d 187 (2010) (J.M.