Legal Opinion

Berg v. Ting

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1995No. 60928-4Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDurham, J.

(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — While I concur with the majority that the grant of the easement failed to conform with the statute of frauds, I disagree with the majority’s rigid application of the doctrine of part performance. The majority effectively precludes a court from ever finding part performance in the grant of an easement. This is contrary to both the equitable nature of part performance, and the court’s tradition of weighing the unique circumstances of each case to determine the enforceability of an agreement not in compliance with the statute of frauds. Because the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kruse v. HempWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Miller v. McCamishWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Powers v. HastingsWashington Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Granquist v. McKeanWashington Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Richardson v. Taylor Land & Livestock Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1946

4 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