# Marchioro v. Chaney

> Washington Supreme Court · July 20, 1978 · 90 Wash. 2d 298

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613940

## Case

- **Full name:** Karen Marchioro, Et Al, Respondents, v. Neale v. Chaney, Et Al, Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 20, 1978
- **Citations:** 90 Wash. 2d 298; 582 P.2d 487; 1978 Wash. LEXIS 1213
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stafford
- **Judges:** Dolliver, Horowitz, Stafford
- **Cited by:** 28 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/9613940

## Opinion text

Stafford, J.
(concurring in the dissent) — I concur in the dissent except insofar as it appears to elevate footnote 8 in Darrin v. Gould, 85 Wn.2d 859, 872 , 540 P.2d 882 (1975) to the status of a holding. In the footnote we merely commented that "three possible exceptions" to the federal equal rights amendment were discussed in Brown, Emerson, Falk & Freedman, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis of Equal Rights for Women, 80 Yale L.J. 871 , 904 (1971). (Italics mine.) We did not hold that there were in fact three exceptions to the absolute ban of classifications based upon sex under the equal rights amendment (Const. art. 31, § 1). Further, none of the three possible exceptions applied in Darrin v. Gould, supra, and none apply here. Thus, we should follow the lead of Darrin and again refrain from deciding either whether such exceptions exist or whether they are absolutes, until the issue is properly before us.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9613940. Public record. Not legal advice.