Washington Law Review
Abstract
It has generally been true that the provisions of waste statutes authorizing multiple damage awards are strictly construed, but this normally has meant that multiple damages will be awarded for voluntary waste whether innocently committed or not, and only single damages for permissive waste. Although the variance between the permissive "may" and the mandatory "shall" might not compel the court to reach a different conclusion, under the limitation of the permissive language of the statute announced in DeLano v. Tennent, it would appear that the legislature by changing to "shall" has flatly rejected the policy against awarding multiple damages and has gone beyond the position normally reached in American jurisdictions.
First Page
31
Recommended Citation
Harry M. Cross,
Comment,
The Amendment of the Waste Statute—Retrogression?,
21 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
31
(1946).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol21/iss1/3