Legal Opinion
Conaway v. Time Oil Company
Washington Supreme Court
Decided October 31, 1949No. 30855PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This action, was brought pursuant to the declaratory judgment statute (Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), §§ 784-1 to 784-17 [P.P.C. §§ 65-1 to 65-33], inclusive). The background of the controversy is shown by the evidence in the case to have been as follows:
In 1946, D. R. Hinkley and wife owned two lots a short distance south of Everett, Washington. They operated, on the lots, a small store, a garage, and a gasoline station in which they retailed gasoline purchased by them from the Time Oil Company, which was represented in the Everett district by C. B. Ward. The Time Oil Company held an option to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Baseball Publishing Co. v. BrutonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Washington Beauty College, Inc. v. HuseWashington Supreme Court · 1938
- Acme Finance Co. v. HuseWashington Supreme Court · 1937
- G.L. P.J.R.R. Co. v. . N.Y. G.L.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Barnett v. LincolnWashington Supreme Court · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Diversified Industries Development Corp. v. RipleyWashington Supreme Court · 1973
- Sproul v. GilbertOregon Supreme Court · 1961
- Seattle First National Bank v. CrosbyWashington Supreme Court · 1953
- Draper MacHine Works, Inc. v. Department of Natural ResourcesWashington Supreme Court · 1991
- Ray v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.