Legal Opinion

Lutz Tile, Inc. v. Krech

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 30, 2007No. 33573-5-IIPublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*901¶1 Paul and Kathy Krech assert that the trial court improperly admitted an expert report into evidence under the “catchall” provision of ER 904, which provides for the admission of certain documentary evidence. In the report, Eric Astrachan gave his expert opinion on the color uniformity of the tile installed in the Kreches’ home. We hold that the trial court erred in admitting the expert report under the ER 904 “catchall” provision. Because no prejudice resulted from the admission of the report, we affirm.

Penoyar, J.

FACTS

¶2 Paul and Kathy Krech retained Lutz Tile, Inc., to handle tile work…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Cockle v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. TharpWashington Supreme Court · 1981
  4. State v. BourgeoisWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. City of Bellevue v. HellenthalWashington Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Miller v. KennyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. Yurtis v. PhippsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  3. Yurtis v. PhippsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  4. Kinney v. CookCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  5. Kinney v. CookCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009

22 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