Legal Opinion

Valley Construction Co. v. Lake Hills Sewer District

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1966No. 37739PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Langenbach, J. †

— Respondents, as contractor, sued to recover the unpaid balance on a contract and to recover costs for repairs which were requested by appellant. Appellant affirmatively counterclaimed for damages which allegedly resulted from respondents’ failure to follow contract specifications, but admitted a balance was still due on the contract.

The trial court granted judgment for respondents as pleaded, and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. This appeal was perfected.

Respondents contracted to construct an 18-inch trunk sewer and two syphon lines according to contract…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. SpearinSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. White v. MitchellWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Maryland Casualty Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Kenney v. AbrahamWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Dehoney v. GjardeWashington Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Absher Construction Co. v. Kent School District No. 415Court of Appeals of Washington · 1995
  2. S. L. Rowland Construction Co. v. Beall PipeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1975
  3. Dravo Corp. v. Municipality of Metropolitan SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Pacific Boring, Inc. v. Staheli Trenchless Consultants, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2015
  5. Lake Hills Invs., LLC v. Rushforth Constr. Co., Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2021

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