Legal Opinion

Mobley v. Harkins

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 18, 1942No. 28607PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Steinert J.

Plaintiffs brought this action seeking (1) to compel defendant V. O. Harkins specifically to perform an alleged oral contract requiring him to assign a certain lease to them, and (2) to enjoin all the defendants, namely, V. O. Harkins, Carl E. Harkins, and the latter’s wife, Ruth Harkins, from disturbing plaintiffs in their possession of the premises covered by the lease. The defendants cross-complained, seeking (1) the forfeiture of a conditional sale contract under which plaintiffs had purchased from defendant V. O. Harkins certain restaurant equipment located on the leased…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Matzger v. Arcade Building & Realty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Richards v. RedelsheimerWashington Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Watkins v. BalchWashington Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Mudgett v. ClayWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Dorman v. PlowmanWashington Supreme Court · 1906

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. IP TIMBERLANDS OPERATING CO. LTD. v. DenmissMississippi Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Miller v. McCamishWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Tiegs v. WattsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Beckendorf v. BeckendorfWashington Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Tiegs v. WattsWashington Supreme Court · 1998

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API