Cottringer v. Employment Security Department
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.
¶1 An individual who chooses to incorporate and thereby enjoy the benefits of the corporate form must also bear the attendant burdens. One such burden is the requirement that a corporation be represented in court proceedings by a licensed attorney. Puget Sound Security Patrol Inc. (PSSP) is a corporation and, accordingly, is required to present its claims in court through a licensed attorney. No pro se exception to this rule applies under the circumstances of this case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing PSSP’s petitions for review after PSSP failed to retain counsel…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Washington State Bar Ass'n v. Great Western Union Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Tiffany Family Trust Corp. v. City of KentWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Advocates for Responsible Development v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Longview Plumbing & Heating Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1998
- Willapa Trading Co. v. Muscanto, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Shenandoah Sales & Service, Inc. v. Assessor of Jefferson CountyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2012
- No On I-502, Arthur West v. NormlCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
- Ahmad v. Town of SpringdaleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Dawud Ahmad v. Town Of SpringdaleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Fuller v. Pierce Conservation DistrictDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2025
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.