Legal Opinion
Murray v. Joe Gerrick & Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided March 24, 1933No. 24301. Department TwoPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.
This action was brought to recover damages for wrongful death. To the complaint, a demurrer was interposed and sustained. An amended complaint was filed, and a demurrer to that was likewise interposed and sustained. The plaintiff elected to stand upon the amended complaint and refused to plead further. Judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which she appeals.
The facts, as stated in the amended complaint, so far as they are necessary to present the questions here for determination, may be summarized as follows: On or about October 1, 1931, the respondent R. W. Kaltenbaeh Corporation…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- International Stevedoring Co. v. HavertySupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Hilding v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1931
- Castner v. Tacoma Gas & Fuel Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923
- Howe v. Whitman CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1922
- Machek v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Beal v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Beal for Martinez v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Atkinson v. State Tax Comm'n of Ore.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Murray v. Joe Gerrick & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- State v. Rainier National Park Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1937
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.