privileges and immunities clause in Washington

2016Our Supreme Court has held the right to *716 equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are “substantially identical and considered by this court as one issue.” State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 281 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991). ¶17 In analyzing an equal protection claim, we “must first determine the standard of review against which to test the challenged legislation.” Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 791 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997).

2016Our Supreme Court has held the right to *716 equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are “substantially identical and considered by this court as one issue.” State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 281 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991). ¶17 In analyzing an equal protection claim, we “must first determine the standard of review against which to test the challenged legislation.” Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 791 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997).

2016Our Supreme Court has held the right to *716 equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are “substantially identical and considered by this court as one issue.” State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 281 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991). ¶17 In analyzing an equal protection claim, we “must first determine the standard of review against which to test the challenged legislation.” Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 791 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997).

2004And, although in recent cases this court has held that the privileges and immunities clause is substantially similar to the equal protection clause, Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 788 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997), the possibility that article I, section 12 could be analyzed separately from the federal equal protection clause has been left open.

2016Our Supreme Court has held the right to *716 equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are “substantially identical and considered by this court as one issue.” State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 281 , 814 P.2d 652 (1991). ¶17 In analyzing an equal protection claim, we “must first determine the standard of review against which to test the challenged legislation.” Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 791 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997).

2004And, although in recent cases this court has held that the privileges and immunities clause is substantially similar to the equal protection clause, Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776, 788 , 940 P.2d 604 (1997), the possibility that article I, section 12 could be analyzed separately from the federal equal protection clause has been left open.

2008State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 200-01 , 751 P.2d 294 (1988); Darrin v. Gould, 85 Wn.2d 859, 871 , 540 P.2d 882 (1975).

2008State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 200-01 , 751 P.2d 294 (1988); Darrin v. Gould, 85 Wn.2d 859, 871 , 540 P.2d 882 (1975).

2008State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 200-01 , 751 P.2d 294 (1988); Darrin v. Gould, 85 Wn.2d 859, 871 , 540 P.2d 882 (1975).

2008State v. Brayman, 110 Wn.2d 183, 200-01 , 751 P.2d 294 (1988); Darrin v. Gould, 85 Wn.2d 859, 871 , 540 P.2d 882 (1975).

2014In Schroeder , our Supreme Court held that a statute that eliminated tolling of the statute of limitations for minors in medical malpractice cases was unconstitutional under the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution. 179 Wn.2d at 577 .

2014In Schroeder, our Supreme Court held that a statute that eliminated tolling of the statute of limitations for minors in medical malpractice cases was unconstitutional under the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution. 179 Wn.2d at 577 .

1999For example, in Housing Authority v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 738-39 , 557 P.2d 321 (1976), we stated that “the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution are substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation.” Further, we held that “[w]here language of our state constitution is similar to that of the federal constitution, we have held that the language of the state constitutional provision should receive the same definition and interpretation as that which has been given to the federal provision.” Housing A

1999For example, in Housing Authority v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 738-39 , 557 P.2d 321 (1976), we stated that “the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution are substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation.” Further, we held that “[w]here language of our state constitution is similar to that of the federal constitution, we have held that the language of the state constitutional provision should receive the same definition and interpretation as that which has been given to the federal provision.” Housing A

1982O'Connell v. Conte, 76 Wn.2d 280, 283 , 456 P.2d 317 (1969); Boeing Co. v. State, 74 Wn.2d 82, 86 , 442 P.2d 970 (1968); State v. Persinger, 62 Wn.2d 362 , 382 P.2d 497 (1963).

1982O'Connell v. Conte, 76 Wn.2d 280, 283 , 456 P.2d 317 (1969); Boeing Co. v. State, 74 Wn.2d 82, 86 , 442 P.2d 970 (1968); State v. Persinger, 62 Wn.2d 362 , 382 P.2d 497 (1963).

2018Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep’t of Health, 164 Wn.2d 570, 608 , 192 P.3d 306 (2008) (quoting O’Hartigan v. Dep’t of Pers., 118 Wn.2d 111, 121 , 821 P.2d 44 (1991)). “[T]he right to equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are ‘substantially identical and considered by this court as one issue.’” State v. Lewis, 194 Wn.

2014Legion, 164 Wn.2d at 607 ). 8 However, we rejected the notion that the privileges and immunities clause is violated anytime the legislature treats similarly situated businesses differently in American Legion.

2008Id. at 94 . ¶54 We must determine whether the right to smoke in a private facility is a privilege or immunity protected by article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution. 29 The privileges and immunities clause is concerned both with “ ‘avoiding favoritism’ ” and “ ‘preventing discrimination,’ ” the latter being the primary purpose of the federal equal protection clause. 30 Andersen, 158 Wn.2d at 14 (quoting Grant County II, 150 Wn.2d at 808).

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶15 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. 5 First, we determine whether “a provision of the sta

2006While the privileges and immunities clause may have been inspired in part by preventing the State from granting privileges to a few, cf. State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 236 , 630 P.2d 810 (1981), the clause protects all of us from privileges granted on unequal terms.

2006While the privileges and immunities clause may have been inspired in part by preventing the State from granting privileges to a few, cf. State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 236 , 630 P.2d 810 (1981), the clause protects all of us from privileges granted on unequal terms.

2004In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wash.2d 379 , 412 n. 24, 986 P.2d 790 (1999).

2004In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wn.2d 379 , 412 n.24, 986 P.2d 790 (1999).

2004In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wash.2d 379 , 412 n. 24, 986 P.2d 790 (1999).

2004In re Det. of Turay, 139 Wn.2d 379 , 412 n.24, 986 P.2d 790 (1999).

1999For example, in Housing Authority v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 738-39 , 557 P.2d 321 (1976), we stated that “the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution are substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation.” Further, we held that “[w]here language of our state constitution is similar to that of the federal constitution, we have held that the language of the state constitutional provision should receive the same definition and interpretation as that which has been given to the federal provision.” Housing A

1999For example, in Housing Authority v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 738-39 , 557 P.2d 321 (1976), we stated that “the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution are substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation.” Further, we held that “[w]here language of our state constitution is similar to that of the federal constitution, we have held that the language of the state constitutional provision should receive the same definition and interpretation as that which has been given to the federal provision.” Housing A

1994State v. Perrigoue, 81 Wn.2d 640 , 503 P.2d 1063 (1972); Olsen, 48 Wn.2d at 550 .

1994State v. Perrigoue, 81 Wn.2d 640 , 503 P.2d 1063 (1972); Olsen, 48 Wn.2d at 550 .

2010In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. (2 Otto) 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875) and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 , 6 S.Ct. 580 , 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886), the United States Supreme Court declined to apply the Second Amendment to the states because the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1872), precluded the application of the Bill of Rights to the states via the privileges and immunities clause, not the due process clause. [10] Moreover these precedents did not foreclose incorporation because each predated selective incorporation, first articulated in 1897.

2008HURST, THE GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW: THE LAW MAKERS 241-42 (1950)). ¶ 41 For example, 12 years after Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1872) had held a Louisiana legislative act of 1869 granting a certain company the exclusive privilege of slaughtering animals for food within New Orleans did not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (while allowing that same might violate similar provisions of a state constitution), [10] the Louisiana Supreme Court held the act was void by a subsequent state constitutional amendment prohibiting monopoli

2014Philippides, 151 Wn.2d at 393 .

2014Philippides, 151 Wn.2d at 393 . 9 It is not clear from Earl' s briefing how he would be entitled to recover in the event that David was considered a minor.

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶15 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. 5 First, we determine whether “a provision of the sta

2007To that end, respondents engage in an analysis of the factors laid out in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wash.2d 54 , 720 P.2d 808 (1986), to determine whether the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution is more protective of the right to vote than is the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. ¶ 11 This court engages in a two step inquiry when considering a claim that a provision of the Washington Constitution provides additional protection than is provided under a provision of the United States Constitution. [5] First, we determine whether "a provision of th

2006First, this court said in Hanson that the privileges and immunities clause and the equal protection clause are "substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation." Hanson, 83 Wash.2d at 200 , 517 P.2d 599 .

2006First, this court said in Hanson that the privileges and immunities clause and the equal protection clause are “substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation.” Hanson, 83 Wn.2d at 200 .

1999For example, in Housing Authority v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 738-39 , 557 P.2d 321 (1976), we stated that “the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution are substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation.” Further, we held that “[w]here language of our state constitution is similar to that of the federal constitution, we have held that the language of the state constitutional provision should receive the same definition and interpretation as that which has been given to the federal provision.” Housing A

1999For example, in Housing Authority v. Saylors, 87 Wn.2d 732, 738-39 , 557 P.2d 321 (1976), we stated that “the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution are substantially identical in their impact upon state legislation.” Further, we held that “[w]here language of our state constitution is similar to that of the federal constitution, we have held that the language of the state constitutional provision should receive the same definition and interpretation as that which has been given to the federal provision.” Housing A

1982O'Connell v. Conte, 76 Wn.2d 280, 283 , 456 P.2d 317 (1969); Boeing Co. v. State, 74 Wn.2d 82, 86 , 442 P.2d 970 (1968); State v. Persinger, 62 Wn.2d 362 , 382 P.2d 497 (1963).

1982O'Connell v. Conte, 76 Wn.2d 280, 283 , 456 P.2d 317 (1969); Boeing Co. v. State, 74 Wn.2d 82, 86 , 442 P.2d 970 (1968); State v. Persinger, 62 Wn.2d 362 , 382 P.2d 497 (1963).