Legal Opinion

Boggess v. King County

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1929No. 21340. Department TwoPublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.

Although the facts in this case are not in dispute, an exposition of the material facts upon which the case was decided by the judge and jury is in order.

Kang county entered into a written contract with F. G. Bronson and George Theusen, copartners, for labor and materials in the excavation, grading and construction of a county highway known as 35th avenue northeast, just north of the city limits of Seattle, which was at the time a regularly travelled street or public way. A considerable number of people lived in the vicinity of the highway under construction, had regularly used it, and the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
  2. Olson v. Gill Home Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Kirtley v. County of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Park v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
  5. Johnston v. Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Berglund v. Spokane CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Simmons v. Cowlitz CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Splinter v. City of NampaIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Graving v. DornWashington Supreme Court · 1963
  5. Miller v. Gooding Highway Dist.Idaho Supreme Court · 1935

9 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