Legal Opinion

Wolfkill Feed & Fertilizer Corp. v. Martin

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided December 26, 2000No. 18937-6-IIIPublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

Mandatory arbitration rules prohibit any reference to the arbitration in any pleading, brief, or other written or oral statement to the court on trial de novo. MAR 7.2(b)(1). Wolfkill Feed and Fertilizer Corporation violated this rule when it discussed the factual substance of the case and that the claim was for $9,000 in its memorandum on de novo review. The question before us is whether the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to recuse himself, seal the trial brief, and impose terms on Wolfkill. We conclude the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to step down…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Wilson v. HorsleyWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. DominguezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1996
  4. Jones v. Halvorson-BergCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1993
  5. State v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1989

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Smith v. Behr Process Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  2. Smith v. Behr Process Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  3. Tatham v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  4. Wolfkill Feed & Fertilizer Corp. v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  5. Hazen v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002

32 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