Judicial Gridlock in King County
The Supreme Court intervenes when two Seattle judges refuse to finalize a case, each insisting the other should sign off.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The supreme court today issued a peremptory writ commanding Judge Lichtenberg, of Seattle, to proceed to a final determination of the case of Hill vs. Young. This is an equity suit originally brought before Judge Lichtenberg as judge of the equity branch of the King County Superior Court, and transferred by him to the civil branch for the trial of questions of fact by a jury. The judge of the civil department, after a verdict had been rendered, certified the proceedings back to Judge Lichtenberg, who refused to receive the case on the ground that final judgment should be rendered by the other judge. A novel controversy followed, both judges refusing to have anything further to do with the case. The supreme court decides that the order of Judge Lichtenberg transferring the suit was unauthorized, and he might have called a jury in the equity department, and it therefore directs him to proceed with the case to a final judgment.
“A novel controversy followed, both judges refusing to have anything further to do with the case.”
Legal wrangling over jurisdiction and administrative accountability remains a hallmark of the judicial process. The friction between King County's 'equity' and 'civil' branches here highlights how local court procedures have historically struggled to balance procedural fairness with basic utility.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.