Colwell v. Etzell
Court of Appeals of Washington
1ConcurrenceSweeney, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result reached by the majority. But I disagree with the analysis leading to that result and, therefore, write separately.
1. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This case was resolved by the court’s summary judgment in favor of William and Lurena Colwell. And we review a summary judgment de novo. Hill v. Cox, 110 Wn. App. 394, 402, 41 P.3d 495, review denied, 147 Wn.2d 1024 (2002). The court’s findings of fact are, then, superfluous. If the material facts were disputed, then summary judgment was not appropriate. Hubbard v. Spokane County, 146 Wn.2d 699, 706 n.14, 50 P.3d 602…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hubbard v. Spokane CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2002
- Haner v. Quincy Farm Chemicals, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1982
- Standing Rock Homeowners Ass'n v. MisichCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- King County v. Squire Investment Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1991
- Hill v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.