reversing a trial court order imposing surgery to treat malignant cancer of the larynx when the IP expressed a preference for radiation treatment
How later courts described this case
- reversing a trial court order imposing surgery to treat malignant cancer of the larynx when the IP expressed a preference for radiation treatment
- rejecting legislative attempt to abolish or abridge the power of the superior court to issue injunctions
- “Any legislation,... the purpose or effect of which is to divest, in whole or in part, a constitutional court of its constitutional powers, is void as being an encroachment by the legislative department upon the judicial department.”
- equity jurisdiction gives rise to inherent authority of court to determine what steps must be taken in the process of a judicial inquiry
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Millabd, C. J.
(dissenting) — In
Casco Co. v. Thurston County,
163 Wash. 666 , 2 P. (2d) 677 , was presented the question whether it was an encroachment upon the constitutional powers of the courts for the legislature to provide that injunctions shall not be issued except in certain cases to restrain the collection of any tax. We there held — what we there said can not lessen the force of that holding — that the procedure sought to be established did not constitute an unlawful encroachment upon the powers and functions of the judiciary as determined by the constitution. Clearly, the rule there announced is applicable in the-ease at bar, where the same question in principle confronts us. Until that case is overruled, I am bound thereby. There is no reason why the rule of
stare decisis
should not obtain in the case at bar as in any other case. It follows that I can not do otherwise than dissent.