Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/318583.pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,394 chars

by the same evidence, was thus settled for all time." Perrault, 83 Wash. at 582; Miller, 5

Wn.2d at 208. But here, the first appeal was from a summary judgment motion that was

addressed to limited issues. The trial court resolved the motion on even more narrow

grounds. We note that unlike CR 12(g), which requires the consolidation of certain

motions to dismiss, CR 56 does not require a party to consolidate its grounds for

summary judgment in a single motion.

In any event, the law of the case is a discretionary doctrine. Folsom, 111 Wn.2d at

263-64; cf RAP 2.5( c)(1) (the appellate court "may" review and determine the propriety

9
             

No. 31858-3-III
Sambas ivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

of a trial court decision even though a similar decision was not reviewed in an earlier

review of the same case). We need not decide whether or when the appeal ofa

dispositive motion presents a potential barrier to subsequent appeals. In this case, we will

consider the issue on the merits.

II. Retaliation under 42 Us.c. § 1981

In its original form, 42 U.S.c. § 1981 was part of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of

1866. 4 The purpose of the Reconstruction Era legislation was to grant civil rights to

newly freed slaves. The United States Supreme Court has pointed out that "[t]hat section

was cast in sweeping terms:"