Law School Case Brief
Garratt v. Dailey - 49 Wash. 2d 499, 304 P.2d 681 (1956)
If the superior court proceeds contrary to the mandate of the state supreme court, it interferes with the state supreme court's jurisdiction. The proper procedure for the aggrieved party to pursue is to apply to the state supreme court for an appropriate writ requiring the superior court to conform to the mandate.
The victim brought an action for assault and battery against the perpetrator after he removed the chair on which the victim was going to sit down. Initially the trial court found in favor of the perpetrator but on remand to consider the issue of his knowledge the trial court reversed its decision and found in favor of the victim. On appeal, the perpetrator contended that the trial court acted contrary to the mandate of the court when it made a finding that the victim was in the act of sitting down when the chair was removed.
Was the perpetrator’s contention that the trial court acted contrary to the mandate of the court meritorious?
The court held that, if the trial court proceeded contrary to the mandate of the court, it interfered with the court's jurisdiction and the proper procedure for the perpetrator was to apply to the court for an appropriate writ requiring the trial court to conform with the mandate. The court held that the perpetrator was foreclosed from objecting to the judgment on that ground because he failed to take appropriate action. The court found ample support in the record that the perpetrator's knowledge was sufficient to charge him with intent to commit a battery.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class