"authority oflaw" as including any "authority granted by a valid . . . statute, the
common law or a rule ofthis court." Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d at 68-69. This definition
does not help Southwick for two reasons. First, Southwick's operating rules are not
statutes, part of the common law, or a rule of the court. Therefore, per the Gunwall
The Board later incorporated the presiding officer's conclusions of law into its final order. There
is nothing to suggest the Board did not adequately consider Southwick's argument.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd., No. 95237-0
language, Southwick's rules are not "authority of law." Southwick argues that it
sold interment rights pursuant to contracts that incorporated these rules, which it
argues are common law contract rights. This argument strains to place its rules
within the Gunwall language, but Southwick, simply stated, cannot contract to
evade statutory requirements. Parties may not contract around existing state law,
and Southwick's argument that its rules establish authority oflaw fails.
Second, Gunwall defines the "authority of law" required by article I, section
7 ofthe Washington Constitution as it relates to search and seizure law.® By
contrast, the "authority oflaw" in this case is provided by the specific statutes
establishing exceptions to chapter 68.50 RCW's general prohibition on
disinterment. Under the statutory exceptions, remains may be disinterred with the
consent of a specified family member or, if familial consent cannot be obtained, by
superior court order. RCW 68.50.200. Another exception is that cemeteries may
move remains from one plot to another without consent, but they must notify next