In re Elliott

In In re Elliott, 74 Wn.2d 600, 446 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1968), the Washington Supreme Court faced the issue of whether its certification statute extended the court's jurisdiction beyond the parameters of the state constitution. 446 P.2d at 350. Like Article IV, section 3 of the NMI Constitution, the Washington constitution provided that "the Washington supreme court shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, review, prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari and all other writs necessary to the complete exercise of its appellate and revisory jurisdiction. Wash. Const. art. IV, 4. Relying on its inherent powers, the court stated: So patent is the power of a court to render an opinion in response to a certified question that New Hampshire has adopted the practice by court rule, not waiting for the expression of legislative approval of the idea . . . . This court, under its rulemaking power . . . could do as the Supreme Court of New Hampshire has done. It could also accept a certified question and respond to it even if there were no implementing statute or rule. It is within the inherent power of the court as the judicial body authorized by the constitution to render decisions reflecting the law of this state. (In re Elliott, 446 P.2d at 358.)