Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (1985)

Citation
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (1985)
Parent Document
State v. Schwab, 693 P.2d 108 (1985)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1985-01-11

Other Sections in This Document (177)

Full Text

747 chars
The judicial process, on the other hand, does not always provide equivalent opportunities. In the present case, for example, the State Attorney General's office represents the interests of the public (and indirectly the rights of the individual tenants),18 whereas the landlord appearing pro se represents himself in a case which potentially affects every person in the state who rents out or ever will rent out one or more dwelling units. Although the Legislature has mandated that the "act shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be served", RCW 19.86.920, that is not to say that the judiciary should not give the most careful consideration to the "process of judicial inclusion and exclusion" of activities under the act.