' Southwick claims the Board never eonsidered its argument that it had authority oflaw
beeause it was acting pursuant to its own rules, but the summary judgment order includes an
explicit finding that Southwick's statutory violations "cannot be overridden by a rule adopted by
[Southwick] on the Correction of Errors." AR at 283. The presiding officer reasoned that
Southwick's rule was a limitation of liability elause and applied to eontraet enforcement, but this
action was for unprofessional eonduet rather than liability, so Southwick's rule did not apply.
8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd., No. 95237-0
68.20.060 empowers cemetery authorities to "make ... and enforce rules and
regulations for the use, care, control, management, restriction and protection of all
or any part of its cemetery." RCW 68.56.060 gives cemetery authorities "the
authority of a police officer for the purpose of.. . enforcing the rules and
regulations ofthe cemetery association, the laws of the state, and the ordinances of
the city or county, within the cemetery over which he or she has charge." RCW
68.24.110 authorizes cemeteries to "sell and convey plots or rights ofinterment
subject to the rules in effect or thereafter adopted by the cemetery authority."
Given this statutory authority to create, implement, and enforce its own operating
rules, Southwick argues that it was acting with "authority oflaw" when it
disinterred the cremains pursuant to its rules and thus did not violate RCW
68.50.140(4).
Southwick relies on language from State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720
P.2d 808(1986)for its definition of"authority of law." In that case, we defined