Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850318.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,741 chars
In determining the plain meaning of a statute, we consider “the
ordinary meaning of words, the basic rules of grammar, and the
statutory context to conclude what the legislature has provided for
in the statute and related statutes.” In re Forfeiture of One 1970
Chevrolet Chevelle, 166 Wn.2d 834, 839, 215 P.3d 166 (2009).
In so doing, we “construe a statute ‘so that all the language used is
given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or
superfluous.’” Seattle City Light v. Swanson, 193 Wn. App. 795,
810, 373 P.3d 342 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting Rapid Settlements, Ltd. v. Symetra Life Ins. Co., 134 Wn.
App. 329, 332, 139 P.3d 411 (2006)). “Common sense informs our
analysis, as we avoid absurd results in statutory interpretation.”
State v. Alvarado, 164 Wn.2d 556, 562, 192 P.3d 345 (2008).

Linville v. Dep’t of Ret. Sys., 11 Wn. App. 2d 316, 321, 452 P.3d 1269 (2019).

6 A superior court commissioner’s interpretation of a statute involves a question of law

which we review de novo. See Faciszewski v. Brown, 187 Wn.2d 308, 313-14, 386 P.3d 711
(2016) (citing King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 555,
14 P.3d 133 (2000)); Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4
(2002) (citing State v. Breazeale, 144 Wn.2d 829, 837, 31 P.3d 1155 (2001); State v. J.M., 144
Wn.2d 472, 480, 28 P.3d 720 (2001)).

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85031-8-I/6

“[I]f, after this inquiry, the statute remains susceptible to more than one

reasonable meaning, the statute is ambiguous and it is appropriate to resort to

aids to construction, including legislative history.” Dep’t of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d at