RAP 2.4 - Scope of Review of a Trial Court Decision

• Proposed Changes to RAP 2.4 - Scope of Review of a Trial Court Decision (in Word Format)
• No comments are available at this time.

(A) Name of Proponent: Washington Court of Appeals Rules Committee.

(B) Spokesperson: Honorable Kevin M. Korsmo, Chair, Washington Court of Appeals Rules Committee.

(C) Purpose: The word “posttrial” is deleted in recognition of the fact that not all final judgments are entered following a trial. In situations where there was no trial, such as summary judgment or the granting of a pretrial motion to dismiss, the language of the existing rule could be read as limiting the scope of review on those occasions where the final order was subject to reconsideration. This amendment conforms the language of the rule to existing practice.

As originally adopted in 1976, this provision was written to parallel the language of RAP 5.2(e), a rule addressing the effect of posttrial motions on the timeliness of a notice of appeal. Both provisions included the word “posttrial” in the rule title and the text of the rule. Both rules were amended in 1994. See 124 Wn.2d at 1110-13. The amendment deleted “posttrial” from RAP 5.2(e) and replaced it with “appealable order.” A new rule, RAP 2.4(f), was created to conform to amended RAP 5.2(e) and, also, did not include the word “post-trial” among its language. RAP 2.4(c) was amended consistently with both new RAP 2.4(f) and the amended RAP 5.2(e), but the word “posttrial” was not deleted from RAP 2.4(c).

(D) Hearing: None recommended.

(E) Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is not requested.