Legal Opinion

Crisman v. Crisman

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 3, 1997No. 18902-0-IIPublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeinfeld, J.

Valerie Crisman contends that the trial court erred in relying upon the statute of limitations to dismiss her conversion claim against Robert Crisman and Richard Uhlich. She argues that the statute should not apply because she was unable to discover the factual basis for her allegations until eight years after the alleged tortious conduct. We agree and reverse.

FACTS

Valerie Crisman opened a jewelry store in Long Beach, Washington, in the mid-1970s. She resided in New York City at that time so hired Robert Crisman (Robert), her twin brother, to manage the store. In turn, Robert hired Richard…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Industrial Indem. Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. KallevigWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Stiley v. BlockWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Ruth v. DightWashington Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Allen v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1975

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Mayer v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  2. Mayer v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  3. Crisman v. CrismanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  4. Winbun v. MooreWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Winbun v. MooreWashington Supreme Court · 2001

42 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