Legal Opinion
Murray v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided March 14, 1963No. 36523PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDonworth, J.
By writ of certiorari, defendant relator, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, seeks to review the action of the Superior Court for King County in denying relator’s motion for a change of venue from King County to Thurston County.
Preliminarily, we dispose of the following matter. Relator has made a motion to quash the “Return of Respondent Judge to Writ of Certiorari” because it was drafted by plaintiffs’ attorneys and the contents were not shown to opposing counsel. The manner in which the respondent judge has the return prepared is his own concern as long as he exercises his judgment in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Southern Fire & Casualty Co. v. NorrisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1952
- Attleboro Mfg. Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1917
- Murray v. MossmanWashington Supreme Court · 1960
- Evans v. Continental Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1952
- Murray v. MossmanWashington Supreme Court · 1958
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Besel v. Viking InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- Besel v. Viking Ins. Co. of WisconsinWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Anchorage, Inc. v. Superior Burner Service Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1967
- Allen v. Highway Equipment Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1976
- King Logging Co. v. ScalzoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.