Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hudson v. Hapner

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 8, 2008No. 35797-6-IIPublished

1DissentVan Deren, C.J.

¶23 (dissenting) — I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Hapner had a right to unilaterally withdraw his request for a trial de novo at any time and suggests that Hudson’s only recourse to avoid this result was to move for trial de novo within 20 days of the arbitrator’s decision. Majority at 286.

*291¶24 Once again, a rule that is supposed to reduce court congestion of civil cases, Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wn.2d 518, 526, 79 P.3d 1154 (2003), and intended to encourage parties to accept an arbitrator’s decision by-penalizing unsuccessful appeals, Walji v. Candyco, Inc., 57…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Berrocal v. FernandezWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Burton v. LehmanWashington Supreme Court · 2005

28 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