Legal Opinion

Shepard v. Dye

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1926No. 19635. Department OnePublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAskren, J.

This is an action to dispossess, under a three-days’ notice for violation of the terms of a lease. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs have appealed.

The facts follow: Appellants, as owners of certain premises in the city of Seattle, leased the same to respondents Dye. Contemporaneously therewith, they leased a portion of the same premises to respondents Green, and assigned the lease to Dye, and Green thereafter paid his rent to Dye. Certain modifications were made in the lease in September, 1924, but without changing the relationship of the parties. In November, 1924,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Miller v. PrescottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
  2. Gluck v. ElkanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
  3. Humphreys v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
  4. Zotalis v. CannellosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  5. Fort Worth Driving Club v. Fort Worth Fair Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Connie Burton v. Tampa Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
  2. State v. O'NealSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1947
  3. American Legion Holding Corp. v. HurowitzSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Schultz v. CardwellWashington Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Philip D. Burgess And Linda L. Burgess, Res. v. Rowena Crossan, App.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015

7 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