Legal Opinion

Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Kinney

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1934No. 25310. Department TwoPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

A motion to strike certain affidavits brought up in the transcript on appeal herein because not made a part of any statement of facts proposed by appellants, to wit, the affidavits of Tom W. Holman, C. A. Tiffany, Allen Hitchings, Roy Betts, and counter affidavits of Cordon D. Eveland, Robert Gr. Davis, A. H. Kinney, and Iver H. Cederwall, is not well based, for the reason that they are specifically referred to in an order modifying, in a certain par ticular, the original decree of the trial court made and entered on April 17, 1934. The matters are governed by our decisions in State v. Vance,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. VanceWashington Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Sipes v. Puget Sound Electric Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1908
  3. State v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Hayworth v. McDonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1912
  5. State v. TerrienWashington Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United Truck Lines, Inc. v. Department of Public WorksWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  2. City of Albia v. StephensSupreme Court of Iowa · 1990
  3. Warner v. Hearst Publications, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API