holding that “this court regards the equal privileges and immunities provision of Art. I, § 12, of the state constitution and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States as substantially identical”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “this court regards the equal privileges and immunities provision of Art. I, § 12, of the state constitution and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States as substantially identical”
- “Trooper Richmond and other witnesses were interviewed by an 9 investigator who prepared a report, but the State Patrol apparently took no further action. 10 Without more, these facts do not establish a legally adequate claim of malicious 11 prosecution . . . .”
- challenging imposition of fuel oil taxes
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Blake, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) — I think that all that is said in the majority opinion may be said with equal force in support of the constitutionality of chapter 186, Laws of 1939, p. 581 (Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 8370-78a [P. C. § 7029k-21]
et seq.).
In effect, the majority hold that act valid except for the provision exempting from its operation oil refined in this state.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the case of
State v. Inland Empire Refineries, Inc.,
3 Wn. (2d) 651, 101 P. (2d) 975 , I am of the view that the attempted exemption was abortive, and did not affect the validity of that act. I think, therefore, the decision in the
Inland Refineries
case should be re
*396
pudiated in its entirety, and the judgments in the instant cases should be reversed in every aspect.
Main, J., concurs with Blake, J.