Legal Opinion

Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 2003No. 73120-9PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*522[As amended by order of the Supreme Court March 11, 2004.]

Sanders, J.

This case requires us to address whether the trial de novo appeal process from mandatory arbitration under chapter 7.06 RCW sufficiently protects the rights of small claimants who are aggrieved by an arbitrator’s erroneous act. We hold it does and that trial de novo is the sole method to seek judicial review from mandatory arbitration. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

These facts are essentially undisputed. Petitioner Malted Mousse, Inc. (Malted Mousse) agreed in March 1999 to sell…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Pierce County Sheriff v. Civil Service CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Barnett v. HicksWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Boyd v. DavisWashington Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. Hisle v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Adler v. Fred Lind ManorWashington Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Malted Mousse, Inc. v. SteinmetzWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  4. In Re DomingoWashington Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Williams v. TilayeWashington Supreme Court · 2012

58 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