Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Washington opinions name it 3 courts 1901–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stoller v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Black’s Law Dictionary 1225 (6th ed. 1990) (citing Stoller v. State, 171 Neb. 93 , 105 N.W.2d 852, 856 (1960) (a proviso is “[a] clause engrafted on a preceding enactment for the purpose of restraining or modifying the enacting clause or of excepting something from its operation which would otherwise have been within it.”)). 2000See Black’s Law Dictionary 1225 (6th ed. 1990) (citing Stoller v. State, 171 Neb. 93 , 105 N.W.2d 852, 856 (1960) (a proviso is “[a] clause engrafted on a preceding enactment for the purpose of restraining or modifying the enacting clause or of excepting something from its operation which would otherwise have been within it.”)). | 2 | 2 |
Matsen v. Kaisergreen2 sentences1983Thus in Matsen v. Kaiser, 74 Wash.2d 231 , 443 P.2d 843 (1968), a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court of Washington, speaking of the benevolent public policy underlying the statute, were careful to qualify their broad statement by noting that "[t]he only exception to the statutory release of all penalties and disabilities attendant upon a conviction is found in the proviso, which is not applicable in the instant case." 74 Wash.2d at 237 , 443 P.2d at 847 (emphasis in original). 1983Thus in Matsen v. Kaiser, 74 Wash.2d 231 , 443 P.2d 843 (1968), a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court of Washington, speaking of the benevolent public policy underlying the statute, were careful to qualify their broad statement by noting that "[t]he only exception to the statutory release of all penalties and disabilities attendant upon a conviction is found in the proviso, which is not applicable in the instant case." 74 Wash.2d at 237 , 443 P.2d at 847 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Bashagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District
green
2 sentences1982This proposition was well stated by this court in McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103, 114 , 102 P.2d 251 (1940) as follows: "It has not been an unfrequent mode of legislation to frame an act with general language in the enacting clause, and to restrict its operation by a proviso. . . . 1982This proposition was well stated by this court in McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103, 114 , 102 P.2d 251 (1940) as follows: "It has not been an unfrequent mode of legislation to frame an act with general language in the enacting clause, and to restrict its operation by a proviso. . . . | 3 | 1941–1982 |
Sackman v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1978Co., 21 Wn.2d 838, 850 , 153 P.2d 859 (1944), quoted Sackman v. Thomas, 24 Wash. 660 , 64 P. 819 (1901): "Now, it is a rule of construction that where the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms. 1978Co., 21 Wn.2d 838, 850 , 153 P.2d 859 (1944), quoted Sackman v. Thomas, 24 Wash. 660 , 64 P. 819 (1901): "Now, it is a rule of construction that where the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms. | 3 | 1935–1978 |
Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2002These criminal judgments could not be excepted from subsection (1) if “judgment” as used there did not include criminal judgments. “[PJrovisos and exceptions remove something from the enacting clause that would otherwise be contained therein.” Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 96 Wn.2d 785, 788 , 638 P.2d 1213 (1982). 2002These criminal judgments could not be excepted from subsection (1) if “judgment” as used there did not include criminal judgments. “[PJrovisos and exceptions remove something from the enacting clause that would otherwise be contained therein.” Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 96 Wn.2d 785, 788 , 638 P.2d 1213 (1982). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Washington State Highway Commission v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1999Co., 59 Wash.2d 216, 222 , 367 P.2d 605 (1961); Automobile Club, 55 Wash.2d at 167-69 , 346 P.2d 695 ). 1999Co., 59 Wash.2d 216, 222 , 367 P.2d 605 (1961); Automobile Club, 55 Wash.2d at 167-69 , 346 P.2d 695 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
AUTOMOBILE CLUB ETC. v. City of Seattle
green
2 sentences1999Co., 59 Wash.2d 216, 222 , 367 P.2d 605 (1961); Automobile Club, 55 Wash.2d at 167-69 , 346 P.2d 695 ). 1999Co., 59 Wash.2d 216, 222 , 367 P.2d 605 (1961); Automobile Club, 55 Wash.2d at 167-69 , 346 P.2d 695 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Cook
green
2 sentences1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. 1911In State v. Hodgdon, 41 Vt. 139 , it is said: “Exceptions should be negatived only where they are descriptive of the offense or define it, but where the exceptions afford matter of excuse merely, and do not define nor qualify the offense created by the enacting clause, they are not required to be negatived; but when the respondent is within the exception, such fact may be relied upon in defense.” The same court, in State v. Bevins, 70 Vt. 574 , 41 Atl. 655 , in reviewing cases involving the above rule says: “The term ‘enacting clause’ should be construed to mean all parts of the statute which | 2 | 1911–1949 |
State v. Davis
neutral
2 sentences1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. 1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. | 2 | 1917–1949 |
State v. Seifert
neutral
2 sentences1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. 1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. | 2 | 1917–1949 |
United States v. Bernays
green
2 sentences1939In Towson v. Denson, 74 Ark. 302 , 86 S. W. 661 , the rule is thus announced: *97 “ ‘When the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms.’ ” In United States v. Bernays, 158 Fed. 792 , we find the following statement: “A proviso should be construed with reference to the subject-matter of the sentence of which it forms a part unless it clearly appears to be designed by the Legislature for a broader or more independent o 1912So the operation of a proviso is usually and properly confined to the clause or provision immediately preceding; . . .” Towson v. Denson, 74 Ark. 302 , 86 S. W. 661 , defines its office as follows: “ ‘When the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause, which does not fall fairly within its terms.’ ” In United States v. Bernays, 158 Fed. 792 , it is said that “A proviso should be construed with reference to the subject-matter of the sentence of which it forms a | 2 | 1912–1939 |
Towson v. Denson
green
2 sentences1939In Towson v. Denson, 74 Ark. 302 , 86 S. W. 661 , the rule is thus announced: *97 “ ‘When the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms.’ ” In United States v. Bernays, 158 Fed. 792 , we find the following statement: “A proviso should be construed with reference to the subject-matter of the sentence of which it forms a part unless it clearly appears to be designed by the Legislature for a broader or more independent o 1939In Towson v. Denson, 74 Ark. 302 , 86 S. W. 661 , the rule is thus announced: *97 “ ‘When the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms.’ ” In United States v. Bernays, 158 Fed. 792 , we find the following statement: “A proviso should be construed with reference to the subject-matter of the sentence of which it forms a part unless it clearly appears to be designed by the Legislature for a broader or more independent o | 2 | 1912–1939 |
McKnight v. Hodge
neutral
2 sentences1990McKnight v. Hodge, 55 Wash. 289 , 104 P. 504 (1909); State ex rel. 1990McKnight v. Hodge, 55 Wash. 289 , 104 P. 504 (1909); State ex rel. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
City of Seattle v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
green
2 sentences1978Co., 21 Wn.2d 838, 850 , 153 P.2d 859 (1944), quoted Sackman v. Thomas, 24 Wash. 660 , 64 P. 819 (1901): "Now, it is a rule of construction that where the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms. 1978Co., 21 Wn.2d 838, 850 , 153 P.2d 859 (1944), quoted Sackman v. Thomas, 24 Wash. 660 , 64 P. 819 (1901): "Now, it is a rule of construction that where the enacting clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is construed strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Pacific County v. State
neutral
2 sentences1977Pacific County v. State, 84 Wn.2d 681 , 529 P.2d 460 (1974); In re Monks Club, Inc., 64 Wn.2d 845 , 394 P.2d 804 (1964); McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103 , 102 P.2d 251 (1940). 1977Pacific County v. State, 84 Wn.2d 681 , 529 P.2d 460 (1974); In re Monks Club, Inc., 64 Wn.2d 845 , 394 P.2d 804 (1964); McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103 , 102 P.2d 251 (1940). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
In Re the Monks Club, Inc.
green
2 sentences1977Pacific County v. State, 84 Wn.2d 681 , 529 P.2d 460 (1974); In re Monks Club, Inc., 64 Wn.2d 845 , 394 P.2d 804 (1964); McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103 , 102 P.2d 251 (1940). 1977Pacific County v. State, 84 Wn.2d 681 , 529 P.2d 460 (1974); In re Monks Club, Inc., 64 Wn.2d 845 , 394 P.2d 804 (1964); McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water Dist., 4 Wn.2d 103 , 102 P.2d 251 (1940). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Young
neutral
2 sentences1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. 1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
State v. Bartow
neutral
2 sentences1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. 1949State v. Davis, 43 Wash. 116 , 86 Pac. 201 ; State v. Seifert, 65 Wash. 596 , 118 Pac. 746 ; State v. Bartow, 95 Wash. 480 , 164 Pac. 227 ; State *684 v. Young, 195 Wash. 515 , 81 P. (2d) 799 ; United States v. Cook, 84 U. S. 168, 21 L. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
State v. Ripley
neutral
1 sentence1941State v. Vosgien, 82 Wash. 685 , 144 Pac. 947 ; State v. Ripley, 104 Wash. 299 , 176 Pac. 343 ; Spokane v. State, 198 Wash. 682 , 89 P. (2d) 826 ; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, 4 Wn. (2d) 103, 102 P. (2d) 251 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Griffith v. Washington Water Power Co.
neutral
1 sentence1941State v. Vosgien, 82 Wash. 685 , 144 Pac. 947 ; State v. Ripley, 104 Wash. 299 , 176 Pac. 343 ; Spokane v. State, 198 Wash. 682 , 89 P. (2d) 826 ; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, 4 Wn. (2d) 103, 102 P. (2d) 251 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Tabb v. Funk
red
2 sentences1941Tabb v. Funk, 170 Wash. 545 , 17 P. (2d) 18 ; Spokane v. State, supra; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, supra. In the Tabb case, we quoted from the early case of Sackman v. Thomas, 24 Wash. 660 , 64 Pac. 819 , as follows: “ ‘ . . . a proviso carves special exceptions only out of the enacting clause, and those who set up any such exception must establish it as being within the words, as well as within the reason, thereof.’ ” As also indicating that the legislature, in making its classifications, was not governed by the size of the machine, we call attention to class 6-1, under § 7676, supra 1941Tabb v. Funk, 170 Wash. 545 , 17 P. (2d) 18 ; Spokane v. State, supra; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, supra. In the Tabb case, we quoted from the early case of Sackman v. Thomas, 24 Wash. 660 , 64 Pac. 819 , as follows: “ ‘ . . . a proviso carves special exceptions only out of the enacting clause, and those who set up any such exception must establish it as being within the words, as well as within the reason, thereof.’ ” As also indicating that the legislature, in making its classifications, was not governed by the size of the machine, we call attention to class 6-1, under § 7676, supra | 1 | 1941–1941 |
State Ex Rel. Wilson v. King County
neutral
1 sentence1941Wilson v. King County, 7 Wn. (2d) 104, 109 P. (2d) 291 ; that is, by the application of the general rule that a proviso which appears to be repugnant to the enacting clause, may be treated as an exception thereto, if it be not contra to the whole thereof, but merely limits its application. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
City of Spokane v. State
green
2 sentences1941State v. Vosgien, 82 Wash. 685 , 144 Pac. 947 ; State v. Ripley, 104 Wash. 299 , 176 Pac. 343 ; Spokane v. State, 198 Wash. 682 , 89 P. (2d) 826 ; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, 4 Wn. (2d) 103, 102 P. (2d) 251 . 1941State v. Vosgien, 82 Wash. 685 , 144 Pac. 947 ; State v. Ripley, 104 Wash. 299 , 176 Pac. 343 ; Spokane v. State, 198 Wash. 682 , 89 P. (2d) 826 ; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, 4 Wn. (2d) 103, 102 P. (2d) 251 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
State ex rel. Chamberlin v. Daniel
green
2 sentences1941Chamberlin v. Daniel, 17 Wash. 111, 114 , 49 Pac. 243 ; Nathan v. Spokane County, 35 Wash. 26 , 76 Pac. 521 , 102 Am. 1941Chamberlin v. Daniel, 17 Wash. 111, 114 , 49 Pac. 243 ; Nathan v. Spokane County, 35 Wash. 26 , 76 Pac. 521 , 102 Am. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Nathan v. Spokane County
neutral
2 sentences1941Chamberlin v. Daniel, 17 Wash. 111, 114 , 49 Pac. 243 ; Nathan v. Spokane County, 35 Wash. 26 , 76 Pac. 521 , 102 Am. 1941Chamberlin v. Daniel, 17 Wash. 111, 114 , 49 Pac. 243 ; Nathan v. Spokane County, 35 Wash. 26 , 76 Pac. 521 , 102 Am. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
State v. Vosgien
neutral
2 sentences1941State v. Vosgien, 82 Wash. 685 , 144 Pac. 947 ; State v. Ripley, 104 Wash. 299 , 176 Pac. 343 ; Spokane v. State, 198 Wash. 682 , 89 P. (2d) 826 ; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, 4 Wn. (2d) 103, 102 P. (2d) 251 . 1941State v. Vosgien, 82 Wash. 685 , 144 Pac. 947 ; State v. Ripley, 104 Wash. 299 , 176 Pac. 343 ; Spokane v. State, 198 Wash. 682 , 89 P. (2d) 826 ; McKenzie v. Mukilteo Water District, 4 Wn. (2d) 103, 102 P. (2d) 251 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
State Ex Rel. Peck v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1939Peck v. Anderson, 92 Mont. 298 , 13 P. (2d) 231 ; Hopkins v. Anderson, 218 Cal. 62 , 21 P. (2d) 560 . 1939Peck v. Anderson, 92 Mont. 298 , 13 P. (2d) 231 ; Hopkins v. Anderson, 218 Cal. 62 , 21 P. (2d) 560 . | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Hopkins v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1939Peck v. Anderson, 92 Mont. 298 , 13 P. (2d) 231 ; Hopkins v. Anderson, 218 Cal. 62 , 21 P. (2d) 560 . 1939Peck v. Anderson, 92 Mont. 298 , 13 P. (2d) 231 ; Hopkins v. Anderson, 218 Cal. 62 , 21 P. (2d) 560 . | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Jones v. Tatham green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Penn Mutual Relief Ass'n v. Folmer
green
1 sentence1924This would be extending the enacting clause by the use of a proviso clause so as to regulate certain non-intoxicating beverages, and then we are met with the rule of construction that a proviso clause cannot be, and, therefore, is presumed not to be, used so as to enlarge the scope of the enacting clause, nor may such clause itself be used as an enacting clause: Jones v. Tatham, 20 Pa. 398 ; Com. v. Charity Hospital of Pittsburgh, 199 Pa. 119, 122 ; Folmer’s Appeal, 87 Pa. 133 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Commonwealth v. Kolb green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Commonwealth v. Swab green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Commonwealth v. Wheeler neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Commonwealth v. Zeitler green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Commonwealth v. Mentzer green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Commonwealth v. Charity Hospital
neutral
1 sentence1924This would be extending the enacting clause by the use of a proviso clause so as to regulate certain non-intoxicating beverages, and then we are met with the rule of construction that a proviso clause cannot be, and, therefore, is presumed not to be, used so as to enlarge the scope of the enacting clause, nor may such clause itself be used as an enacting clause: Jones v. Tatham, 20 Pa. 398 ; Com. v. Charity Hospital of Pittsburgh, 199 Pa. 119, 122 ; Folmer’s Appeal, 87 Pa. 133 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Laidlaw v. Portland, Vancouver & Yakima Railway Co. neutral | 1 | 1917–1917 |
| Dickson v. County of Kittitas neutral | 1 | 1917–1917 |
| Tsutakawa v. Kumamoto green | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| State v. Hodgdon neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| State v. Bevins green | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| United States v. Dickson green | 1 | 1901–1901 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.