Legal Opinion

Biehn v. Bannick

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 1932No. 23116. En BancPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Holcomb, "J.

This action was instituted by respondents against appellants for twenty-five thousand five hundred dollars damages for false arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution. The chief adversaries in the litigation are respondents and appellant Underhill, a deputy under appellant Bannick, sheriff of King county. The surety company was sued as surety on the sheriff’s bond.

This action arose out of a controversy as to the ownership of a certain Jersey-Gfuernsey cow which respondents had raised from a calf. They had kept it in their possession on their property in Kirkland until they…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Kusah v. McCorkleWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Johnson v. Williams' Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901
  3. Lucchesi v. ReynoldsWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Greenius v. American Surety Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Torgeson v. HanfordWashington Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Palmer v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1970
  2. Styers v. . Forsyth CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. Nelson v. BartellWashington Supreme Court · 1940
  4. State Ex Rel. Day v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Dogarin v. ConnorCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1967

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