Clipse v. State
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Wendle v. FarrowWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Miller v. BadgleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
- Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1990
3Cited by7 opinions
- Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
- Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1992
- Mitchell v. Washington State Institute of Public PolicyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Fjelstad v. State, Through Dept. of HighwaysMontana Supreme Court · 1994
- Bigelow v. BigelowSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.