Skilcraft Fiberglass, Inc. v. Boeing Co.
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
Roland O. Balloun appeals the trial court's judgment imposing CR 11 sanctions, arguing that neither Boeing nor Hermanson Corporation was entitled to be served with his default motion against Boeing and that deficiencies in the bond recorded by Hermanson justified his actions in seeking the default judgment. We affirm.
In October 1990, Hermanson Corporation, the primary contractor on a construction project for the Boeing Company, entered into an agreement with Skilcraft Fiberglass, Inc., under which Skilcraft was to provide ducting materials for the project. Subsequently, Hermanson concluded…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- H. F. Livermore Corporation v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder LoepfeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1970
- Gage v. Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1989
- Wilson v. HenkleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
- Clarke v. Equinox Holdings, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1989
- Shreve v. ChamberlinCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1992
3Cited by22 opinions
- Morin v. BurrisWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Morin v. BurrisWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- City of Des Moines v. PERSONAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS $81,231 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCYCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
- Colacurcio v. BurgerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- Colacurcio v. BurgerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.