Legal Opinion
Mumma v. Rainier National Bank
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided May 9, 1991No. 25914-8-IPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, J.
Jan Mumma appeals the trial court's granting of summary judgment to respondent Rainier National Bank and denial of summary judgment to herself, alleging the trial court erred in failing to rule that respondent wrongfully accepted a check for deposit. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
Appellant Jan Mumma received a cashier's check from Mutual of Enumclaw representing a partial annuity withdrawal of $13,904.48. She then met with James H. Liddell, an investment adviser doing business under the corporate name JHL & Associates, Inc. Liddell agreed to invest Mumma's funds in Fidelity, a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Swiss Baco Skyline Logging, Inc. v. HaliewiczCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1977
- Dynalectron Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
- L. B. Smith, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- DYNALECTRON CORPORATION v. Union First National BankDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1980
- Ryland Group, Inc. v. Gwinnett County BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Danco, Inc. v. Commerce Bank/ShoreNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1996
- J.R. Simplot, Inc. v. KnightWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- JR Simplot, Inc. v. KnightWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Purina Mills, Inc. v. Security Bank & TrustMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- J.R. Simplot, Inc. v. KnightCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.