Legal Opinion
In Re of Cooke
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 5, 1999No. 16825-5-IIIPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
In this action to dissolve a meretricious relationship, the question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing $20,000 in attorney fees (terms) against Jack Cooke because he signed and filed an unsupported, and unsupportable, statement of issues. It did not. And we affirm the order.
Facts
Cooke and Lieselotte Burgner (now Lieselotte Basham) had a meretricious relationship between late 1991 and October 1993. Cooke lived in Burgner’s home “off and on.” In June 1994, Cooke filed a petition for distribution of assets pursuant to dissolution of a meretricious…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Beth Hand, Now Known as Beth Hand CharlesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
- Hsu Ying Li v. TangWashington Supreme Court · 1976
- Miller v. BadgleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Wood v. Battle Ground School Dist.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Skimming v. BoxerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- Skimming v. BoxerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- BUILDING INDUSTRY ASS'N v. McCarthyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Building Industry Ass'n v. McCarthyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.