# Halverson v. Anderson

> Washington Supreme Court · September 6, 1973 · 82 Wash. 2d 746

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570739

## Case

- **Full name:** Marie Halverson, as Guardian, Respondent, v. Donald Anderson Et Al., Petitioners
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 6, 1973
- **Citations:** 82 Wash. 2d 746; 513 P.2d 827; 1973 Wash. LEXIS 720
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hale
- **Judges:** Rosellini
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570739

## Opinion text

*753 Hale, C.J.
(dissenting) — I doubt that any jury has ever deliberated upon its verdict entirely free of the kind of remarks and observations described in the court’s opinion. To vacate a verdict because of them I think violates the sanctity of the jury room and contrary to long-standing principles permits the jury to impeach its own verdict. Setting aside this verdict on the stated grounds erects new barriers to finality of verdict and judgment in a judicial system already overburdened with superfluous procedural machinery.
The Court of Appeals, I think, decided this case correctly on the basis that the issue before it was
substantially the same as the question resolved by the Supreme Court in State v. Gobin, 73 Wn.2d 206, 210 , 437 P.2d 389 (1968)
and I would accordingly affirm that court’s decision.
Finley and Wright, JJ., concur with Hale, C.J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570739. Public record. Not legal advice.