holding that nonclaim statutes requiring victims of governmental torts to give notice of their claims within a short period after they arise bear no rational relationship to the legislature’s goals of ensuring that large governmental institutions are notified of claims or facilitating governmental institution’s budget planning
How later courts described this case
- holding that nonclaim statutes requiring victims of governmental torts to give notice of their claims within a short period after they arise bear no rational relationship to the legislature’s goals of ensuring that large governmental institutions are notified of claims or facilitating governmental institution’s budget planning
- 120 day notice statute for actions against political subdivisions would violate basic concepts of due process and equal protection if applied to minors
- rejecting dictum in prior decision that a statute similar to section 613A.5 did not violate equal protection
- striking a 120-day nonclaims statute that effectively operated as a statute of limitations
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Maxwell v. Department of Labor & Industries, 25 Wash. App. 202 (1980)
Thus cases such as Hunter v. North Mason High School & School Dist. 403, 85 Wn.2d 810, 539 P.2d 845 (1975), cited by Maxwell are inapposite.
The opinion
Stafford, C.J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. Once again the majority has chosen to ignore the clear dictate of Const. art. 2, § 26 which provides:
The legislature shall direct by law, in what manner, and in what courts, suits may be brought against the state.
(Italics mine.) My objection to the action taken by the majority has been stated in both Cook v. State, 83 Wn.2d 599 , 521 P.2d 725 (1974) and Shafer v. State, 83 Wn.2d 618 , 521 P.2d 736 (1974). Nothing will be gained by repeating it.