Legal Opinion

Clipse v. State

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 29, 1991No. 26113-4-IPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWebster, J.

Chester W. Clipse and his attorney, Wayne R. Parker (hereinafter Clipse) appeal a superior court order requiring him to reimburse the respondents' costs and attorney fees under CR 11 based on a finding that Clipse made "misleading and inaccurate disclosures of expert witnesses. " Clipse asserts that the trial court erred in imposing terms under CR 11 because: (1) CR 11 does not apply to pretrial disclosures, (2) his disclosure was not misleading or inaccurate, and (3) the judgment erroneously awarded amounts respondents already claimed in a separate cost bill. We affirm based on CR 26(g).

Facts

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Wendle v. FarrowWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Miller v. BadgleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
  5. Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1990

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Mitchell v. Washington State Institute of Public PolicyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Fjelstad v. State, Through Dept. of HighwaysMontana Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Bigelow v. BigelowSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000

2 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