Legal Opinion

Tuschoff v. Westover

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 18, 1962No. 36621PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition, notwithstanding that findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment have been entered which makes certiorari the appropriate device. This court has traditionally regarded substance rather than form, and has treated any application as proper irrespective of the writ asked. A complete transcript of the clerk’s record has been furnished by the relators, and the respondents have filed a statement of facts certified to contain all of the matters not already part of the record. The record thus brought here is as complete as could be…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Young v. RileyWashington Supreme Court · 1961
  2. State Ex Rel. Nielsen v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  3. State Ex Rel. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  4. State Ex Rel. Antonsen v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  5. STATE EX REL. STROM. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Carlstrom v. HanlineCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  2. Moses v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Tuschoff v. WestoverWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Spring v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
  5. City of Seattle v. KeeneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001

2 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