Legal Opinion

Hinton v. Carmody

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1935No. 25283. Department TwoPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Holcomb, J.—

A noticed motion to strike and refuse to consider the brief of respondent, heretofore heard and passed to determination on the merits, is denied for the reason that Mr. Kennett, the principal attorney for respondent, was compelled to devote most of his time and activities, after the appeal was taken herein, to the business of the Federal government in the department of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which was sufficient excuse for the delay.

A noticed motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal, heretofore heard and passed to the decision on the merits, is also denied. It…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Silverstein v. AdamsWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Wellman v. MeadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1919
  3. Wilson v. FlemingWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Davis v. North Coast Transportation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Aronson v. City of EverettWashington Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Lundgren v. Whitney's Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Holthe v. IskowitzWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Chadwick v. EkWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Hinton v. CarmodyWashington Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Trainor v. Interstate Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1936

2 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