Legal Opinion

Slemmons v. Shotwell

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 1964No. 37055PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOtt, C. J.

Warren R. Slemmons commenced an action against J. G. Shotwell to recover upon an assigned account for legal services performed by J. Kennard Cheadle for J. G. Shotwell.

The defendant answered the amended complaint and, as an affirmative defense, alleged:

“At a date in 1953 or 1954 defendant J. G. Shotwell verbally consulted J. K. Cheadle, an attorney at law in Spokane, Washington, and pursuant to said consultation said J. K. Cheadle performed certain services, the exact nature of which is unknown to defendants, for the period November 4, 1953 through November 3, 1958. All of said services were…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Motor Contract Co. v. Van Der VolgenWashington Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Schrock v. GillinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Haney v. Radio Corp. of AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 1964

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Coast Sash & Door Co. v. Strom Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Senfour Investment Co. v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Mathis v. SwansonWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  4. King County v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  5. King County v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API