Legal Opinion

Shandrow v. City of Tacoma

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 1936No. 26399. Department OnePublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

—This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The cause came on for trial before the court and a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which, was granted. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was granted as to the defendant, the city of Tacoma. From the order entered granting the new trial and dismissing the action as to the other defendants, the city appealed.

The facts are these: The injury for which recovery was sought was to the respondent Flossie Shandrow, and occurred February 21, 1935, at about…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Aronson v. City of EverettWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Neidhardt v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  3. Smith v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Colquhon v. City of HoquiamWashington Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Matson v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Hutton v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Scott Paper Co. v. City of AnacortesWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Russell v. City of GrandviewWashington Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Shandrow v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Hutton v. MartinWashington Supreme Court · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API