Legal Opinion
Holmquist v. King County
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided June 30, 2014No. Nos. 70500-8-I; 70504-1-IPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDwyer, J.
¶1 In 1926, two individuals signed real estate installment contracts, a form of executory contract, to purchase properties on Lake Washington from the Puget Mill Company. In 1932, while both individuals were still making timely installment payments, the King County Board of Commissioners vacated the street separating the two properties. The timing of the street vacation is what has, 80 years later, led to this property ownership dispute between Keith and Kay Holmquist, Frederick Kaseburg, King County, and the City of Seattle.
¶2 It has long been the law in this state that a plat presumptively…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Ashford v. ReeseWashington Supreme Court · 1925
- Cascade Security Bank v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1977
- City of Palmetto v. KatschSupreme Court of Florida · 1923
- Bradley v. Spokane & Inland Empire RailroadWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Rowe v. JamesWashington Supreme Court · 1912
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bryan Kelley And Dorre Don Llc v. Beverly L. TondaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
- Keith L. & Kay Burdine Holmquist And Fredrick Kaseburg v. City Of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
- Robert Boyd Et Al., Appellants, v. Sunflower Properties LLC, RespondentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
- Christopher H. Floeting v. Group Health CooperativeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
- City Of Seattle v. Frederick A. KaseburgCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.