Legal Opinion

Stangland v. Brock

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1987No. 53052-1PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Durham, J. —

The beneficiaries of a will brought this action for damages against two attorneys and their law firm, alleging that as a result of the attorneys' negligence, *677they were unable to take assets originally devised to them. The trial court granted the defendants' CR 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.

An action may be dismissed under CR 12(b)(6) only if "'it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the complaint, which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.'" Bowman v.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Guy v. LiederbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Pelham v. GriesheimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Orwick v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Jones v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Trask v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Bohn v. CodyWashington Supreme Court · 1992

24 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