Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,727 chars
7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/8

statute and related statutes which disclose legislative intent about the provision in

question,” we can determine whether Congress intended to supply such a basis

to subsection (c) elsewhere in Section 4024. See Dep’t of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d

at 11. Based on the connections and cross-references placed in section 4024, it

is clear that Congress intended that the basis provided in subsection (b)—

nonpayment of rent—also apply to subsection (c).

Indeed, Congress plainly intended the provisions of Section 4024 to be

read together. Subsection (a) sets forth the definition of the phrase “covered

dwelling” and that phrase is used twice in subsection (b) and twice in subsection

(c), thereby connecting these three sections. Furthermore, in subsection (c),

Congress placed an “and” conjunction between paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph

(c)(2), thereby connecting together the paragraphs of subsection (c). Lastly—

and significantly—in paragraph (c)(2), Congress expressly referenced not only

paragraph (c)(1), but also subsection (b), thereby connecting subsection (c) with

subsection (b). Congress thus intertwined these three sections with not only a

shared vocabulary, but also a conjunction linking together the paragraphs of

subsection (c) and an express reference in subsection (c) to subsection (b). We

do not consider these connections to be superfluous or meaningless. Linville, 11

Wn. App. 2d at 321 (quoting Swanson, 193 Wn. App. at 810). Therefore, it is

clear that Congress intended for subsection (b), paragraph (c)(1), and paragraph

(c)(2) to be connected to and read in conjunction with one another.