{"id":2211,"date":"2018-04-07T13:23:55","date_gmt":"2018-04-07T21:23:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trainingpips.com\/?page_id=2211"},"modified":"2019-04-18T03:22:20","modified_gmt":"2019-04-18T11:22:20","slug":"ps-102-chapter-3-article-2-immunity-from-service-anderson-vs-ivarsson","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/ps-102-a-course-outline\/ps-102-understanding-case-summaries\/ps-102-chapter-3-an-introduction-to-immunity-from-service-case-law\/ps-102-chapter-3-article-2-immunity-from-service-anderson-vs-ivarsson\/","title":{"rendered":"PS 102 – Chapter 3 – Article 2 – Immunity from Service – Anderson vs Ivarsson"},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary
\n<\/strong>Supreme Court
\nAnderson v. Ivarsson, 77 Wn. 2d 391 (1969).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. and Mrs. Ivarsson are residents of Switzerland. They came to this state for the purpose of attending a hearing in a guardianship matter involving their minor<\/a> daughter. During a mid-morning recess of the hearing, the Ivarssons were served with a summons and complaint<\/a> for an action<\/a> arising from default<\/a> on a loan of money made to them by Mr. Anderson.<\/span> The loan of money was to cover traveling expenses in attending an earlier hearing in this state with respect to their daughter.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ivarssons moved to quash the service of summons and complaint<\/a> on the grounds that they, as non residents of the state, were immune from service of process while attending a judicial<\/a> proceeding within this state.<\/span><\/p>\n

Judicial<\/a> History<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Superior Court entered an order quashing the service of the summons. The Appellate Court vacated the order and remanded the cause<\/a> for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Specific Issue<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Is the general rule of immunity from service of process on a non resident witness or party<\/a> in an unrelated civil<\/a> action<\/a> while temporarily within this state for purpose of attending the trial or hearing of a pending civil<\/a> suit rigorously enforced upon all occasions? No<\/strong><\/p>\n

Holding<\/strong><\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The underlying purpose of the rule extending immunity from the service of unrelated civil<\/a> process to non resident suitors and witnesses, attending upon a local civil<\/a> judicial<\/a> proceeding<\/span>, is to insulate the pending litigation<\/a> against the interference and vexation which might arise from the untimely intervention of unrelated litigation<\/a><\/span>. The privilege of the immunity is therefore, primarily a privilege of the courts rather than a right of the individual<\/span>, resting as it does, upon the foundation of judicial<\/a> convenience and the furtherance of the orderly and unfettered administration of justice<\/a>.<\/span> The exemption is not one to be arbitrarily and rigorously enforced upon all occasions but rather it can and should be extended or withheld only as judicial<\/a> necessities dictate<\/span>; provided the service of process does not in fact<\/a> interrupt and interfere with the in court proceedings<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Reasoning<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The courts recognized there are certain limitations upon the application of privilege of immunity. One of them being that should a person<\/a>, while going to, attending, or coming from, a local judicial<\/a> proceeding, wrong or injure an innocent<\/a> third party<\/a> resident, then the privilege of immunity may<\/a> be withdrawn.<\/span> These were the circumstances in this case<\/a> and the court ruled accordingly by not extending the privilege to the Ivarssons.<\/p>\n

C4PSE Comment<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This case<\/a> is in stark contrast to State ex rel Gunn vs Superior Court and establishes firmly the idea that immunity from service is a privilege granted by the courts and is not a right of the the individual<\/span>. Comparing these two cases emphasizes the concept that the service of process is considered “fact<\/a> specific” by the courts.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Summary Supreme Court Anderson v. Ivarsson, 77 Wn. 2d 391 (1969). Facts Mr. and Mrs. Ivarsson are residents of Switzerland. They came to this state for the purpose of attending a hearing in a guardianship matter involving their minor<\/a> daughter. During a mid-morning recess of the hearing, the Ivarssons were served with a summons and complaint<\/a> […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":2207,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2211","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2211","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2211\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2207"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.trainingpips.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}