Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 952370.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 952370.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/952370.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,567 chars

to violate any provision of chapter 68.50 RCW,and RCW 18.235.110(l)(h)

^ The Department asserts that "person," as used in the statute, includes corporations;
otherwise, it would have unintended consequences throughout chapter 68.50 RCW.Southwick
does not disagree.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd,No. 95237-0

empowers the Board to impose civil penalties, including monetary penalties up to

$5,000 per violation.

Chapter 68.50 ROW provides some exceptions and defenses(or

authorization) to this general prohibition on disinterring human remains. Remains

may be disinterred with a surviving family member's consent or, if a relative's

consent cannot be obtained, by court order. RCW 68.50.200. These requirements

do not apply when a cemeteiy authority moves remains within a cemetery, but"a

cemetery authority shall provide notification to the [next of kin] before moving

human remains." RCW 68.50.220. The basis for the statutory violations in this

case is not giving statutorily required notification to next of kin before disinterring

the cremains. Under RCW 68.50.140(4) and 68.50.220, a violation of.140(4) may

also be a violation of.220; the lack of prior notice is common to both. Conversely,

notice by a cemetery before disinterment in accordance with .220 is a defense to a

violation of.140(4).

Southwick argues it acted pursuant to its own rule 10(j) when it moved the

cremains to correct the error of interment within the easement area.^ RCW