Legal Opinion

Beagle v. Beagle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1960No. 35194PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent moves to strike the statement of facts from the record on appeal for the reason that it was not timely filed, in accordance with Rule on Appeal 34, RCW, Vol. 0. The proposed statement of facts was filed more than ninety days after entry of the decree. No application for extension of time for filing was filed within the ninety-day period, or at all. See Beagle v. Beagle, ante p. 174, 346 P. (2d) 689 (1959).

In the exercise of our discretion (since the timely filing of a statement of facts is no longer jurisdictional), we deny the motion to strike the statement of facts; but, pursuant…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Beagle v. BeagleWashington Supreme Court · 1959

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. AshbaughWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Neal v. GreenWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Kuhnhausen v. EnglandWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Ewer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1969
  5. State v. O'CONNELLWashington Supreme Court · 1974

1 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