Legal Opinion

Blair v. TA-Seattle East No. 176

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 2011No. 83715-5PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

¶1 This case requires us to consider whether a trial court abused its discretion when it excluded witnesses as a sanction for a discovery violation, without making a record of the basis for its decision. As a result of the witness exclusion, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff’s case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We reverse because the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the discovery sanction without setting forth the reason for its sanction on the record, as required by Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Burnet v. Spokane AmbulanceWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Snedigar v. HoddersenWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Snedigar v. HoddersonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1989

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Keck v. CollinsWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Jones v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Teter v. DeckWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Blair v. TA-Seattle East No. 176Washington Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Foss Maritime Co. v. BrandewiedeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015

20 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