Legal Opinion

Burt v. Heikkala

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1954No. 32550PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMallery, J.

— The plaintiff is a real-estate broker licensed to do business in Washington and Oregon. On May 8, 1951, defendants gave him an exclusive agency for six months •to sell their theatre in Woodland, Washington. The pertinent part of the listing contract provides:

“For Value Received, you [plaintiff] hereby are employed to sell or exchange the business, personal property and lease, if any, as described hereon and given the exclusive right to sell or exchange the same at the price and terms noted. ... In the event that you . . . shall find a buyer ready and willing to enter into a deal . . . or in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bloom v. ChristensenWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Trudeau v. Pacific States Box & Basket Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Truck Insurance Exchange v. HansonWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Johnston v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1953

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Peterson v. HaganWashington Supreme Court · 1960
  3. REID v. ReidOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. State v. GraffiusCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
  5. Bishop v. NorellArizona Supreme Court · 1960

7 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