“[Shopping malls are concerned with just one aspect of their patrons’ lives — shopping.”
How later courts described this case
- “[Shopping malls are concerned with just one aspect of their patrons’ lives — shopping.”
- noting the "United States Supreme Court expressly declined to extend the `public function' doctrine to a privately owned shopping mall" and finding no "persuasive reason why this doctrine should apply any differently under our state constitution"
- notwithstanding lack of the words "state action” in free speech provision, Constitution is founded upon a need “to govern the relationship between the people and their government, not to control the rights of the people vis-a-vis each other”
- rejecting, by an 8-1 majority, the suggestion that the initiative and referendum provision in that state’s constitution added anything to the state constitution’s free speech provisions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pearson, J.
(concurring in the result)—In a case analogous to the case at bench, a majority of this court recently held, "[t]he issuance of the permanent injunction by the trial court constitutes State action." Bering v. Share, 106 Wn.2d 212, 221 , 721 P.2d 918 (1986). I am persuaded that should be the law of this case as well. Nevertheless, the majority today not only fails to apply the holding in Bering v. Share, supra, but altogether fails even to acknowledge its existence.
I would hold the granting of the permanent injunction constituted state action sufficient to invoke the protections afforded by Const, art. 1, § 5. Accordingly, the balancing of Alderwood Assocs. v. Washington Envtl. Coun., 96 Wn.2d 230 , 635 P.2d 108 (1981) criteria engaged in by the concurrence properly resolves the issue at hand. Thus, I concur in the result.
Dore, J., concurs with Pearson, J.