Haywood v. Aranda
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtAlexander, C.J.
In Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 133 Wn.2d 804, 947 P.2d 721 (1997), this court held that in order for a party to obtain a trial de novo following mandatory arbitration of a civil action, the party seeking the trial must strictly comply with MAR 7.1 and timely file proof of service of the request for trial de novo. In the two cases before us we *233are presented with an issue that flows from but was not directly addressed in Nevers: whether an objection to a trial de novo, on grounds that the party requesting the trial failed to timely file proof of service of the request for a trial de novo, may be…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Lybbert v. Grant CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
- In re the Detention of TurayWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGITWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hudson v. HapnerWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Hudson v. HapnerWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Haywood v. ArandaWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Hudson v. HapnerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
- City of Tacoma v. Mary Kay, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.