Legal Opinion

Smith v. Arnold

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 19, 2005No. 30488-1-IIPublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 Beverly and Marvin Arnold appeal the superior court’s order denying their motion to vacate an order of default in the personal injury suit against them. The Arnolds did not receive notice of the motion for an entry of default because they had not filed a notice of appearance. Nevertheless, they maintain that they were entitled to notice because they had “informally” appeared in the lawsuit through their out-of-court contacts with the plaintiff. Alternatively, the Arnolds argue that the default order should have been vacated under CR 55 because their failure to appear was the result of…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc., Dba Computerized TechnologyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
  3. H. F. Livermore Corporation v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder LoepfeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
  4. Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Nguyen v. STATE HEALTH MED. QUALITY ASSUR.Washington Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Morin v. BurrisWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Morin v. BurrisWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Gutz v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  4. Gutz v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  5. Doty-Fielding v. Town of South PrairieCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008

13 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