Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 952370.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 952370.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,768 chars
(2)Every person who shall purchase or receive, except for burial
or cremation, human remains or any part thereof, knowing that the same
has been removed contrary to the foregoing provisions, is guilty of a
class C felony.

(3) Every person who shall open a grave or other place of
interment, temporary or otherwise, or a building where human remains
are placed, with intent to sell or remove the casket, urn, or of any part
thereof, or anything attached thereto, or any vestment, or other article
interred, or intended to be interred with the human remains, is guilty of
a class C felony.

(4) Every person who removes, disinters, or mutilates human
remains jfrom a place of interment, without authority oflaw, is guilty of
a class C felony.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. & Professions Div.,^o. 95237-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)

RCW 68.50.140(emphasis added). Southwick clearly "remove[d] human remains."

As the majority acknowledges, the only question is whether it did so "without

authority of law."

Neither the plain language of RCW 68.50.140(4) nor the full statute within

which it resides helps us interpret that phrase in this case. "Authority of law" is not

defined in that statute. In fact, it is not defined anywhere in Title 68 RCW, even

though it appears in two provisions ofthat title: RCW 68.50.140(making it a felony

to disinter human remains "without authority of law") and 68.24.190 (making it a

misdemeanor to establish a roadway through cemeteries "without authority oflaw").

The parties, of course, seize on the absence of a clear definition within the

statute or the chapter to argue for their own interpretations. Southwick argues that it