Sather v. Lindahl
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.
A new trial was granted in a personal injury action because the plaintiff had, when his deposition was taken four days before the trial, answered, “Not that I know of,” in response to the question, “Do you know of any witnesses to this accident?” when, in fact, the plaintiff and his counsel did know of four eyewitnesses, whom they produced at the trial and who testified without objection.
The defendants, on cross-examination of these witnesses, developed the fact that they had been known to the plaintiff and his counsel. The defendants also impeached the plaintiff by showing that he had made a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. CooperWashington Supreme Court · 1946
- Newsum v. Pennsylvania R. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- State v. WillisWashington Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by15 opinions
- Gebhard v. NiedzwieckiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Wright v. RoyseAppellate Court of Illinois · 1963
- Barci v. Intalco Aluminum Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1974
- Norquay v. Union Pacific RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1987
- Battershell v. Bowman Dairy Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1961
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.