Legal Opinion

Boitano v. Snohomish County

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1941No. 28481PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinert, J.

This is an action for damages to* real property caused by the acts of defendant Snohomish county in conducting and precipitating water from its premises onto the land of plaintiffs. The action was tried to the court without a jury. The court made findings of fact, from which it concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. Judgment was entered accordingly, and plaintiffs have appealed.

The facts as found by the trial court, in so far as they are material here, are as follows: Appellants own an undivided three-quarters interest in approximately eighteen acres of garden land in…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. United States v. FoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Kincaid v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Great Northern Railway Co. v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Wong Kee Jun v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Jacobs v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Miotke v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. WarfordArizona Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Phillips v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  4. Caron v. Grays Harbor CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Harkoff v. Whatcom CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1952

31 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