holding that the appellate court may review unassigned errors if the issues are reasonably clear from the arguments in the brief, the opposing party has not been prejudiced, and the court has not been overly inconvenienced
How later courts described this case
- holding that the appellate court may review unassigned errors if the issues are reasonably clear from the arguments in the brief, the opposing party has not been prejudiced, and the court has not been overly inconvenienced
- approving “proposition that when an appellant fails to raise an issue in the assignments of error, in violation of RAP 10.3(a)(3), and fails to present any argument on the issue or provide any legal citation, an appellate court will not consider the merits of that issue”
- when an appellant fails to raise an issue in the assignments of error and fails to present any argument on the issue or provide any legal citation, an appellate court will not consider the merits of that issue
- “where the nature of the appeal is clear and the relevant issues are argued in the body of the brief and citations are supplied so that the Court is not greatly inconvenienced and the respondent is not prejudiced, there is no compelling reason for the appellate court not to exercise its discretion to consider the merits of the case or issue”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Talmadge, J.
)(concurring) — I concur with the majority opinion. The failure to assign error, as required by RAP 10.3(a) and RAP 10.3(g), should not result in the waiver of the error on appeal where the issue associated with the error is plainly articulated and argued. An issue is waived, however, if counsel do not plainly articulate and argue it in the appellate pleadings.
I write separately only to emphasize that proper assignments of error are indeed mandatory in briefs. RAP 10.3(a)(3), RAP 10.3(b), RAP 10.3(g), RAP 10.3(h). Assignments of error assist counsel and the appellate courts to focus the issues for decision. Even though the failure to assign error may not result in the waiver of the issue associated with the alleged error, sanctions under RAP 10.7 may well be appropriate for counsel who neglect to meet the requirements of RAP 10.3. See, e.g., Hurlbert v. Gordon, 64 Wn. App. 386 , 824 P.2d 1238 , review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1015 (1992).