Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Melter v. Melter

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 20, 2012No. 29192-8-IIIPublished

1ConcurrenceSweeney, J.

¶66 (concurring) — The majority opinion is probably correct given case law precedent in this state. I *314concur specially to explain why I think that precedent is analytically flawed and to explain, why in this case in particular, the correct analysis (deferring to the trial judge’s findings rather than revisiting those findings here on appeal) might well require that we affirm the judgment here.

Burden of Proof

¶67 In all cases, the burden of proof consists of two parts — a burden of production and a burden of persuasion. Fed. Signal Corp. v. Safety Factors, Inc., 125 Wn.2d 413, 433, 886 P.2d 172…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Industrial Indem. Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. KallevigWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Hizey v. CarpenterWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004

16 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