Legal Opinion

Estep v. King County

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 1965No. 37220PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWeaver, J.

The sole asset of Molehill, Inc., a Washington corporation, was a vendee’s interest in a contract to purchase certain real property owned by Mr. and Mrs. William E. Russell.

The secretary and counsel of Molehill, Inc. testified that the corporation refused the offer of H. R. Watchie to purchase its interest in the Russell contract because of the possibility that both the corporation and stockholders, upon distribution, would be subject to federal income tax on capital gains. We do not ascribe a sinister motive to the Molehill stockholders in their attempt possibly to minimize their federal…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gregory v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. United States v. Frank N. Mattison and Ida G. MattisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
  3. Deer Park Pine Industry, Inc. v. Stevens CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Christensen v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  5. The Doric Co. v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1961

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Ban-Mac, Inc. v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  2. State Ex Rel. Namer Investment Corp. v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Weaver v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Getty Images (Seattle), Inc. v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  5. Christensen v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1965

6 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