Legal Opinion

Spokane County v. Specialty Auto & Truck Painting, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 19, 2003No. 21027-8-IIIPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

Washington court rule CR 41, like its federal counterpart, Fed. R. Civ. R 41, requires dismissal with prejudice, even of a voluntary nonsuit, “when obtained by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.” CR 41(a)(4). The county of Spokane (County) filed two suits, voluntarily dismissed both of them, and then filed a third — all for the same claims against the same defendants. The trial judge refused to dismiss the third suit despite the mandatory language of CR 41 because he concluded that application of CR 41 in these circumstances would not further…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mead School District No. 354 v. Mead Education Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. v. BartonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  3. Oregon Mutual Insurance v. BartonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  4. Burley v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1983
  5. City of College Place v. StaudenmaierCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Spokane County v. Specialty Auto and Truck Painting, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Spokane County v. Specialty Auto & Truck Painting, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Roberson v. PerezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  4. Spokane County v. Specialty Auto and Truck Painting, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  5. Guillen v. Pierce CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2005

4 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