Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Little v. King

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2007No. 77560-5Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

¶28 (concurring/dissenting) — I agree with the majority’s holding that The St. Paul Insurance Company was not entitled to notice of the default hearing because it was not a party to the litigation. But I disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial court abused its discretion in vacating the default judgment against Annie King. The majority’s decision is contrary to our longstanding deference to a trial court’s decision to set aside a default judgment in favor of a trial on the merits. It is well settled that an abuse of discretion is less likely to be found if the trial court sets…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Enron Oil Corp. v. DiakuharaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  3. Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
  4. Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. And Michael Ackerman, Individually v. Fingerhut Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  5. Jesus Briones v. Riviera Hotel & CasinoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997

44 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