Legal Opinion

Kietz v. Gold Point Mines, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 1939No. 27345. Department OnePublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

In the second amended complaint, which will be referred to as the complaint, there are two causes of action, separately stated. The first is one of equitable cognizance, and the second is purely a cause of action at law. The trial was to the court without a jury, and, at the conclusion thereof, the court announced that no judgment would be entered upon the first or equitable cause of action, but that judgment would be entered in the law action. Each of the parties requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the court refused to make any findings and entered simply a judgment, from…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Dunn v. PleseWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Colvin v. ClarkWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Western Dry Goods Co. v. HamiltonWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Boe v. Hodgson Graham Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1917
  5. State ex rel. Howland v. Olympia Veneer Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1924

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bowman v. WebsterWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Phelps v. PhelpsWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  3. State Ex Rel. Tollefson v. NovakWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Buob v. Feenaughty MacHinery Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Cole v. OsborneWashington Supreme Court · 1944

3 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