Legal Opinion

Hudson v. Hapner

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 2010No. 82409-6PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMadsen, C.J.

¶1 This case began with an automobile accident. The case was referred to mandatory arbitration, and the plaintiff, Lea Hudson, won a monetary award. Respondents (Hapner) requested a trial de novo under the Superior Court Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR). Hudson improved her position at trial, receiving a substantially greater award. Hapner successfully appealed, obtaining reversal and instructions for a new trial. Despite appellate success, Hapner moved in the trial court to withdraw his request for trial de novo, end the litigation, and pay the original arbitration award. The trial court…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Wilson Court v. Tony Maroni'sWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Wilson Court Ltd. Partnership v. Tony Maroni's, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Wiley v. RehakWashington Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Berryman v. MetcalfCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
  2. Russell v. MaasCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  3. Specialty Asphalt & Constr., LLC v. Lincoln CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2018
  4. Hickok-Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  5. Mai v. American Seafoods Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2011

11 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