Legal Opinion

Kope v. Columbia River Interstate Bridge Commission

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1928No. 20809. Department TwoPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

The purpose of this action was to recover damages for personal injuries. Some time after the summons and a copy of the original complaint were served, an amended complaint was served. To the amended complaint, a demurrer was interposed and sustained. The plaintiff refused to plead further, and elected to stand upon the amended complaint. Judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which plaintiff appeals.

The facts necessary to he stated in order to present the question to be determined are very few. The action was one against Clark county. The appellant was injured June 11, 1926. He…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hanford v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Lara v. SandellWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Bullock v. Yakima Valley Transportation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Blalock v. CondonWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Cresswell v. Spokane CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State Ex. Rel. Wash. Nav. Co. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Miles v. Chinto Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1944
  3. McDonald v. Camas Prairie RailroadWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Cook v. Clallam CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Jessup v. Clallam CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API