Little v. King
Washington Supreme Court
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
- Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Enron Oil Corp. v. DiakuharaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. And Michael Ackerman, Individually v. Fingerhut Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
- Jesus Briones v. Riviera Hotel & CasinoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.