public interest exception in Washington

2026Beaver, 184 Wn.2d at 331 .

2016See, e.g., In re Det. of Swanson, 115 Wn.2d 21, 25 , 804 P.2d 1 (1990) (“ ‘[T]he need to clarify the statutory scheme governing civil commitment is a matter of continuing and substantial public interest.’ ” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196, 200 , 728 P.2d 138 (1986))); Beaver, 184 Wn.2d at 331 . ¶27 The issues presented in this case satisfy the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.

2023We only apply the substantial public interest exception when “ ‘the real merits of the controversy are unsettled and a continuing question of great public importance exists.’ ” Id. (quoting Sorenson v. City of Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558 , 496 P.2d 512 (1972)). 3 No. 58028-4-II The emergency proclamations being challenged by Silent Majority have been rescinded and the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic has ended.

2023We only apply the substantial public interest exception when “ ‘the real merits of the controversy are unsettled and a continuing question of great public importance exists.’ ” Id. (quoting Sorenson v. City of Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558 , 496 P.2d 512 (1972)). 3 No. 58028-4-II The emergency proclamations being challenged by Silent Majority have been rescinded and the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic has ended.

2015Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 791 .

1988Under Hangman Ridge, in analyzing the public interest requirement, the court must first determine whether the context of the act was "essentially a consumer transaction" or rather "essentially a private dispute." Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 789-90 .

1984Where the specific public interest has not been declared legislatively, it must be established by proving each of the three parts of the public interest test announced in Anhold [ 94 Wn.2d 40 , 614 P.2d 184 (1980)] and previously set forth in this opinion.

1984Where the specific public interest has not been declared legislatively, it must be established by proving each of the three parts of the public interest test announced in Anhold [ 94 Wn.2d 40 , 614 P.2d 184 (1980)] and previously set forth in this opinion.

2023To determine if a moot issue meets this public interest exception, we consider “ ‘[(1)] the public or private nature of the question presented, [(2)] the desirability of an authoritative determination for the future guidance of public officers, and [(3)] the likelihood of future recurrence of the question.’ ” Id. (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hunley, 175 Wn.2d at 907 ).

2019As a general rule, "where only moot questions or abstract propositions are involved, . . . the appeal, or writ of error, should be dismissed." Sorenson v. City of Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558 , 496 P.2d 512 (1972); see also Klickitat County Citizens Against Randy Reynolds & Assocs. v. Kasey Harmon No. 95575-1 Imported Waste v. Klickitat County, 122 Wn.2d 619, 631 , 860 P.26 390, 866 P.2d 1256 (1993): State v. Beaver, 184 Wn.2d 321, 330 , 358 P.3d 385 (2015)('"A case is technicaily moot if the court can no longer provide effective relief.'" (quoting State v. Hunley, 175 Wn.2d 901, 907 , 287 P.

2020While we may consider moot appeals under what is known as the public interest exception, Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 286-87 , 892 P.2d 1067 (1994), we decline to do so herein.

2020While we may consider moot appeals under what is known as the public interest exception, Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 286-87 , 892 P.2d 1067 (1994), we decline to do so herein.

2016Walker, 124 Wn.2d at 414 ; League of Educ.

2016Walker, 124 Wn.2d at 414 ; League of Educ.

2016The Constitutionality of I-13 66 "An exercise of the initiative power is an exercise of the reserved power of the people to legislate." Amalg., 142 Wn.2d at 204 .

2016The Constitutionality of 1-1366 ¶19 “An exercise of the initiative power is an exercise of the reserved power of the people to legislate.” Amalg., 142 Wn.2d at 204 .

2025App. 2d 346 , 352, 556 P.3d 692 (2024) (considering a moot issue under the public interest exception because “there is the possibility that this issue would likely continue to evade review”).

2025App. 2d 346 , 352, 556 P.3d 692 (2024) (considering a moot issue under the public interest exception because “there is the possibility that this issue would likely continue to evade review”).

2025App. 2d 312 , 321, 433 P.3d 863 (2019) (quoting Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 286-87 , 892 P.2d 1067 (1994)); see also Love Overwhelming v. City of Longview, 32 Wn.

2025App. 2d 312 , 321, 433 P.3d 863 (2019) (quoting Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 286-87 , 892 P.2d 1067 (1994)); see also Love Overwhelming v. City of Longview, 32 Wn.

2021In re Det. of M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633, 648 , 374 P.3d 1123 (2016). 1 Ch. 49.60 RCW. -2- No. 81861-9-I/3 While DOC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly an issue of public importance, the Supreme Court and this court have issued several opinions providing guidance for public officers on substantially similar issues.

2021In re Det. of M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633, 648 , 374 P.3d 1123 (2016). 1 Ch. 49.60 RCW. -2- No. 81861-9-I/3 While DOC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly an issue of public importance, the Supreme Court and this court have issued several opinions providing guidance for public officers on substantially similar issues.

2008Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wash.App. 371 , 57 P.3d 1178 (2002), and applied an actual malice standard of fault.

2008App. 371 , 57 P.3d 1178 (2002), and applied an actual malice standard of fault.

2008Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wash.App. 371 , 57 P.3d 1178 (2002), and applied an actual malice standard of fault.

2008The trial court concluded that Bharti’s defamatory statements were protected by a public interest privilege derived from Alpine Industries Computers, Inc., v. Cowles Publishing Co., 114 Wn.

2007Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508 , 67 S.Ct. 839 . ¶ 19 Courts should also consider the following public interest factors in determining an appropriate forum: (1) administrative difficulties in congested courts not at the origin of the litigation; (2) the burden of jury duty on a community that has no relation to the litigation; (3) the proximity between the trial's location and the people the case affects; (4) the interest in having local controversies decided locally; and (5) the desireability of trying the case in a jurisdiction familiar with the state law that governs the case.

2007Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508 . ¶19 Courts should also consider the following public interest factors in determining an appropriate forum: (1) administrative difficulties in congested courts not at the origin of the litigation, (2) the burden of jury duty on a community that has no relation to the litigation, (3) the proximity between the trial’s location and the people the case affects, (4) the interest in having local controversies decided locally, and (5) the desirability of trying the case in a jurisdiction familiar with the state law that governs the case.

2007Myers, 115 Wash.2d at 129 , 794 P.2d 1272 (quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09 , 67 S.Ct. 839 ). ¶ 20 After balancing the Myers factors, the trial court granted Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss, stating that "[t]here is no question that many of the factors, both private and public, are either neutral or in favor of holding this trial in Arkansas." CP at 160.

2007Myers, 115 Wn.2d at 129 (quoting Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09 ). ¶20 After balancing the Myers factors, the trial court granted Weyerhaeuser’s motion to dismiss, stating that “[t]here is no question that many of the factors, both private and public, are either neutral or in favor of holding this trial in Arkansas.” CP at 160.

2005Horner, 151 Wn.2d at 892 .

2005Horner, 151 Wash.2d at 892 , 93 P.3d 124 .

1988See, e.g., Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wn.2d 176, 178 , 532 P.2d 614 (1975); Department of Ecology v. Adsit, 103 Wn.2d 698, 705 , 694 P.2d 1065 (1985); Bresolin v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 167, 169 , 558 P.2d 1350 (1977); Seattle v. State, supra at 237.

1988See, e.g., Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wn.2d 176, 178 , 532 P.2d 614 (1975); Department of Ecology v. Adsit, 103 Wn.2d 698, 705 , 694 P.2d 1065 (1985); Bresolin v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 167, 169 , 558 P.2d 1350 (1977); Seattle v. State, supra at 237.

1988See, e.g., Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wn.2d 176, 178 , 532 P.2d 614 (1975); Department of Ecology v. Adsit, 103 Wn.2d 698, 705 , 694 P.2d 1065 (1985); Bresolin v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 167, 169 , 558 P.2d 1350 (1977); Seattle v. State, supra at 237.

1988See, e.g., Hartman v. State Game Comm'n, 85 Wn.2d 176, 178 , 532 P.2d 614 (1975); Department of Ecology v. Adsit, 103 Wn.2d 698, 705 , 694 P.2d 1065 (1985); Bresolin v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 167, 169 , 558 P.2d 1350 (1977); Seattle v. State, supra at 237.

1988The public interest exception has not been used in statutory or regulatory cases that are limited on their facts, see, e.g., Harvest House Restaurant, Inc. v. Lynden, 102 Wn.2d 369 , 685 P.2d 600 (1984) (ordinance limiting sale of liquor only one existing in the state); Tri-State Constr.

1988The public interest exception has not been used in statutory or regulatory cases that are limited on their facts, see, e.g., Harvest House Restaurant, Inc. v. Lynden, 102 Wn.2d 369 , 685 P.2d 600 (1984) (ordinance limiting sale of liquor only one existing in the state); Tri-State Constr.

1988Co. v. Seattle, 14 Wn.

1988Co. v. Seattle, 14 Wn.

1987In decisions prior to the public interest requirement set forth in Anhold and Lightfoot v. MacDonald, 86 Wn.2d 331 , 544 P.2d 88 (1976), we had described trade name infringement cases as falling within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.

1987In decisions prior to the public interest requirement set forth in Anhold and Lightfoot v. MacDonald, 86 Wn.2d 331 , 544 P.2d 88 (1976), we had described trade name infringement cases as falling within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.

2025Id. at 38 min., 33 sec.

2024“The WCAA, chapter 19.16 RCW, enacted in 1971, requires collection agencies to obtain a license, follow certain internal procedures, and adhere to a code of conduct.” Gray v. Suttell & Assocs., 181 Wn.2d 329, 344 , 334 P.3d 14 (2014); RCW 19.16.110 (“No person shall act, assume to act, or advertise as a collection agency or out-of-state collection agency as defined in this chapter, except as 4 For the first time in his reply brief, Kasoff suggests that this court should reach the merits of this case because it presents an issue that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” This argument

2024“The WCAA, chapter 19.16 RCW, enacted in 1971, requires collection agencies to obtain a license, follow certain internal procedures, and adhere to a code of conduct.” Gray v. Suttell & Assocs., 181 Wn.2d 329, 344 , 334 P.3d 14 (2014); RCW 19.16.110 (“No person shall act, assume to act, or advertise as a collection agency or out-of-state collection agency as defined in this chapter, except as 4 For the first time in his reply brief, Kasoff suggests that this court should reach the merits of this case because it presents an issue that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” This argument