TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Bremerton v. Fisk

The City of Bremerton v. Edison S. Fisk

City of Bremerton v. Fisk, 486 P.2d 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Washington · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 13, 1971
Docket
No. 170-2
Judges
Petrie
Citations
486 P.2d 2944 Wash. App. 9611971 Wash. App. LEXIS 1469

Opinion of the Court — Petrie

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Petrie, C.J.

The City of Bremerton charged Edison S. Fisk in Bremerton Municipal Court with violation of two sections of a city ordinance, in two counts, in that on September 20, 1968, Mr. Fisk did then and there willfully and unlawfully:

(1) conduct himself in a disorderly manner and in a manner tending to disturb the public pease [sic] and quiet by carrying a protest sign with profane and abusive language

(2) indulge in conduct towards other persons which tended to produce a disturbance of the peace.

*962 Count 1, designated “Disorderly Conduct,” charged violation of section 1 of ordinance 325 of the City of Bremerton; count 2, designated “Disturbing the Peace,” charged violation of section 5 of the same ordinance.

The municipal court found him not guilty of count 2, and the same was dismissed; on count 1 he was found guilty and he appealed to the Superior Court for Kitsap County.

After trial to the court, and after issuing an oral opinion, but without having entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court entered a judgment and sentence, adjudging in part:

[T]hat the Defendant be, and he hereby is found guilty of the charge of breach of the peace and [in?] that the Defendant did appear on the public streets of the City of Bremerton on the 20th day of September, 1968, carrying and displaying an obscene sign which sign also displayed “fighting words” ....

Before passing upon the several assignments of error raised by the defendant, this court should have the benefit of specific findings and conclusions of the trial court. Seattle v. Silverman, 35 Wn.2d 574 , 214 P.2d 180 (1950). We cannot consider this appeal without findings of fact and conclusions of law, because the record does not fully indicate the basis on which the trial court entered its specific judgment of guilty to count 1 of the complaint. State v. Helsel, 61 Wn.2d 81 , 377 P.2d 408 (1962).

The judgment appealed from is vacated, 'and the cause is remanded to the superior court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, based thereon, a judgment from which an aggrieved party may appeal. No costs in this court will be allowed to either party.

Pearson and Armstrong, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1998: 219982026peak 1998 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Head964 P.2d 1187 (Wash. 1998)
  2. State v. Head136 Wash. 2d 619 (1998)

Most recent

  1. State v. Head964 P.2d 1187 (Wash. 1998)
  2. State v. Head136 Wash. 2d 619 (1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Helsel, 377 P.2d 408 (Wash. 1962) 16
City of Seattle v. Silverman, 214 P.2d 180 (Wash. 1950) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list