The State of Washington, on the Relation of Charles O. Carroll, Petitioner v. John M. Junker, Respondents…

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court, en banc, held that a superior court judge erred both in retaining jurisdiction to rule on motions supported by his own substantive affidavit and in entering, wholly ex parte and without notice, an order allowing a law professor and two students to examine 189 current mental illness files closed by RCW 71.02.250. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court found the order rested on untenable grounds and lacked safeguards sufficient to overcome the legislatively conferred privacy, and it announced that mass disclosures of closed files require notice to someone positioned to oppose them and oversight by a master or referee. The cause was reversed and remanded with directions to make the temporary injunction permanent. Justice Williams, joined by Justices Finley and Neill, dissented, contending the statutes vested broad case-by-case discretion in the trial judge and that the majority's notice requirement was unworkable judicial legislation; Justice Finley filed a separate special concurrence in dissent.