Legal Opinion

Endicott v. Saul

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 4, 2008No. Nos. 58435-9-I; 58531-2-IPublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 — Emma Endicott, Samantha and Robert Saul, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein challenge the trial court’s decision to establish a limited guardianship for Emma under the guardianship act, chapter 11.88 RCW, and to issue a protective order under the abuse of vulnerable adults act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. After a 10-day bench trial that took place over the course of three months, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma was at significant risk of personal and financial harm and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma.…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District v. DickieWashington Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. 224 Westlake, LLC v. Engstrom Properties, LLCCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  2. Knight v. KnightCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  3. In re the Estates of JonesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012
  4. In Re Estate of HavilandCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  5. Melter v. MelterCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012

21 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