Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Full Text
1,759 charsA. Matters of Public Concern This court has considered the scope of the attorney general’s authority under RCW 43.10.030(1) in City of Seattle, 172 Wn.2d 551, Young Americans for Freedom v. Gorton, 91 Wn.2d 204, 588 P.2d 195 (1978) (YAF), and State v. Taylor, 58 Wn.2d 252, 362 P.2d 247 (1961), finding the actions were authorized in each case. Under those cases, the attorney general has discretionary authority to act in any court in matters of public concern, even without express statutory authorization, provided there is a cognizable common law or statutory cause of action. City of Seattle, 172 Wn.2d at 562 (quoting Taylor, 58 Wn.2d at 256-57); YAF, 91 Wn.2d at 209. First, in Taylor, the attorney general brought an action for accounting against a charitable trust. 58 Wn.2d at 254. We concluded the attorney general had a duty to represent the public interest in enforcing a charitable trust and could maintain an action against the trustees concerning its administration. Id. at 255, 261. We noted that the attorney general was particularly suited to enforce the duties of the trustees because it was “unlikely that any person or group of persons would be directly interested or sufficiently affected to be accorded legal standing or status, such as in the case of beneficiaries of a private trust, to investigate and to do something about mismanagement.” Id. at 259, 256 (“‘A charitable trust is of public concern and the attorney-general is the protector of the interests of the public, or, what is the same 17 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. State v. City of Sunnyside et al. No. 101205-5 thing, of the indefinite and fluctuating body of persons who are the cestui que trust.’”