Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pelly v. Behneman

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1932No. 23489. En BancPublished

1DissentHolcomb, J.

(dissenting) — The foregoing opinion is erroneous both in reasoning and result. Its interpretation of our decision in the Old National Bank case, supra, is incorrect. The statute, which remains the same at present, was quoted, which provides that an appeal may be taken

“From any order affecting a substantial right in a civil action or proceeding, which either, (1) in effect determines the action or proceeding and prevents a final judgment therein; or (2) discontinues the action;”

It was then said:

‘ ‘ The language of the statute seems to be clear. The order must in effect determine the action…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Freeman v. AmbroseWashington Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Whitehead v. StringerWashington Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Olsen v. NewtonWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  4. County of Snohomish v. RuffWashington Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Virtue v. StanleyWashington Supreme Court · 1914

5 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