Legal Opinion

Heroux v. Phare

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1949No. 31076PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

A motion has been presented by Edward M. McFerran, one of the respondents, asking that the appeal as to him be dismissed. His motion is based upon two grounds, each of which is disclosed by the record before the court, as follows:

“First: That appellant has failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court by filing proof of, or written admission of, service of his brief upon this respondent within ninety days after taking of the appeal or at all.
“Second: That appellant has not, within five days after the filing of Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court or at any time, filed…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re the Estate of YandWashington Supreme Court · 1945

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Strmich v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Malott v. RandallWashington Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Malott v. RandallWashington Supreme Court · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API