striking down provision in regulatory statute that grandfathered in protections for those holding gillnetting licenses in 1932-33, in part because it did “not accomplish the purpose suggested by [the State’s] argument”
How later courts described this case
- striking down provision in regulatory statute that grandfathered in protections for those holding gillnetting licenses in 1932-33, in part because it did “not accomplish the purpose suggested by [the State’s] argument”
- act forbidding issuance of licenses to take salmon by gill nets except for those holding licenses in 1932 and 1933 set up arbitrary classification and conferred special privileges on those entitled to licenses in violation of article I, section 12
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. Moos, 92 Wash. 2d 939 (1979)
187 Wash. 75, 82 , 59 P.2d 1101 (1936), overruled on other grounds by Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass’n v. Moos, 92 Wn.2d 939 , 603 P.2d 819
The opinion
Although I feel that some of the analogies and hypotheses in the prevailing opinion are unnecessary and not germane, I am most heartily in accord with the result: that the portion of § 4 condemned, undoubtedly contravenes Art. I, § 12, of the state constitution, which is the only question with which we should concern ourselves. I doubt whether relator is in any way denied any rights under the 14th amendment to the Federal constitution.