Suspending the Pardon Power during the Twilight of a Presidential Term

In January 2001, the singular executive power to grant official absolution was back in the public spotlight and on the scholarly roundtable with President Bill Clinton\u27s last-minute pardons of or commutations granted to nearly two hundred people, several of which are difficult or impossible to justify

Willful Judging of Harry Blackmun, The

As an invited guest at a symposium in which a central place is given to examining the personal papers and judicial life of a jurist who is esteemed and even revered by many of those participating and attending, my playing of a negative note may sound discordant. Indeed, it may appear downright rude. Because my hosts assured me that the academic ideal of balanced perspectives and critical analysis animated this symposium, and that they would expect nothing less than such a countervailing viewpoint from me, I feel less churlish than otherwise I might

The Constitutional Validity of the Modification of Joint and Several Liability in the Washington Tort Reform Act of 1986

With the Washington Supreme Court having recently invalidated the statutory cap placed on awards of noneconomic damages to tort plaintiffs as a violation of the state constitutional right to a jury trial, we may expect an increasing onslaught upon other controversial provisions of the Washington Tort Reform Act of 1986. In particular, the modification of the common law doctrine of joint and several liability, which was also accomplished by the Tort Reform Act and is codified at section 4.22.070 of the Washington Revised Code, has already become a target of plaintiffs\u27 attorneys in tort litigation and has also come under repeated attack by commentators in Northwest regional law reviews. The need for eventual resolution of this dispute by the Washington Supreme Court seems certain. To balance the legal debate, this Article suggests that the statutory revision and partial abolition of joint and several liability was the necessary and appropriate next step in the evolution of modern tort law to a system founded upon the concept of comparative fault among all parties. Properly understood in its historical context and interpreted under established, rather than innovative and unfounded, principles of constitutional law, the modification of joint and several liability passes muster under the Washington Constitution

Toward a Unified Reasonable Use Approach to Water Drainage in Washington

Competition for scarce water resources has been the predominant concern in Washington water law, but this Comment focuses on the opposite problem—the disposal of unwanted water. Water drainage has great significance as a problem which permeates land development. Almost any development of land is likely to alter the flow of water draining from the land to the possible harm of neighboring property. While many aspects of drainage are now regulated through institutional bodies created by the state legislature and municipalities, this Comment addresses the problems that arise between neighboring landowners when one alters the drainage of water to the consequent injury of the other. This Comment considers the common law in Washington governing water drainage. In particular it analyzes the disparity between the standards of liability for diversion of diffuse surface and watercourse drainage. This Comment advocates a unified approach toward these two areas of water drainage by suggesting a balancing test of reasonableness for interference with water drainage

Interpretation of the Statutory Modification of Joint and Several Liability: Resisting the Deconstruction of Tort Reform

This Article defends RCW 4.22.070 and opposes the deconstruction of legislative tort reform. The Article’s premise is that the legislature did indeed intend to accomplish a significant reform of the liability system and to take a long, purposeful stride toward the implementation of comparative fault as applied to all parties in tort litigation. The Article concludes that the legislature adopted language that adequately, if sometimes imperfectly, achieves that purpose. The Article discusses the following: the meaning of “fault” as applicable through RCW 4.22.070; the nature of the entities to whom fault must be allocated; the responsibility for raising the culpability of an unjoined entity and the burden of proof on allocation of fault; the manner in which damages are to be apportioned among the culpable parties; the separate rule for parties acting in concert or as agents; the limited form of joint and several liability that applies when the plaintiff is without fault; the provisions for settlement and contribution under the statute; and the three exceptions to the statute. Additionally, the Article examines two areas in which RCW 4.22.070 must be read in conjunction with other statutes to as to give the fullest possible effect to both legislative enactments. First, the article outlines a recent Washington Supreme Court decision concerning the application of comparative responsibility principles to the workers compensation program. Second, the Article looks at the application of the comparative fault principles of the 1986 modification of joint and several liability in the context of the 1981 retailer relief provision, which granted broad relief to retailers but left them exposed to liability in certain circumstances, such as when the manufacturer of the product was insolvent. Lastly, the Article offers some ruminations on the future course of the common law as it develops with respect to joint and several liability in those few areas that fall outside the express mandate of the 1986 statute