Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.92

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.92.110

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person sentenced to imprisonment in any penal institution shall be under the protection of the law, and any unauthorized injury to his or her person shall be punished in the same manner as if he or she were not so convicted or sentenced. A conviction of crime shall not work a forfeiture of any property, real or personal, or of any right or interest therein. All forfeitures in the nature of deodands, or in case of suicide or where a person flees from justice, are abolished.
[ 2011 c 336 s 332; 1909 c 249 s 36; RRS s 2288.]

Notes:

Inheritance rights of slayers or abusers: Chapter 11.84 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Willoughby v. Department of Labor & Industries
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Willoughby v. Department of Labor & Industries (2002) wash · cites it 7× “Judge Schacht of the Walla Walla County Superior Court found these statutes worked a forfeiture of the prisoners’ property contrary to RCW 9.92.110, violated their right to equal protection of the law, and deprived them of their property without due process of law.”
Greenhalgh v. Department of Corrections (2014) washctapp · cites it 7× “000) constitutes impermissible and unconstitutional forfeiture under RCW 9.92.110 and Wash. Const, art. I, § 15; and (3) DOC violated state and federal due process when it deprived them of their previously authorized property.”
State v. Catlett (1997) wash “" RCW 9.92.110. Until the 1970s, forfeiture under Washington law was very limited, [6] whether characterized as civil or criminal.”
State v. Catlett (1997) wash “” RCW 9.92.110. Until the 1970s, forfeiture under Washington law was very limited, 15 whether characterized as civil or criminal.”
Willoughby v. Dept. of Labor & Industries (2002) wash · cites it 8× “Judge Schacht of the Walla Walla County Superior Court found these statutes *613 worked a forfeiture of the prisoners' property contrary to RCW 9.92.110, violated their right to equal protection of the law, and deprived them of their property without due process of law.”
State v. Morbeck (1979) washctapp “RCW 9.92.110. In an emergency of the kind claimed here, the defendant could have requested administrative sequestration.”
Daniel Jerimiah Simms, Et Ano., V. Daryl B. Fish (2021) washctapp “According to Simms, the trial court’s decision “is a clear federal and state constitutional violation as [Simms] would be denied Due Process to protect personal rights (See: Wash.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.