Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,759 chars
A. 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.’”