Legal Opinion

Sommerfeldt v. Union Painting Co.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 1960No. 35133PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinley, J.

Appellant commenced this action to recover damages for the breach of an alleged written contract under *251which he was to provide respondent, an Alaska corporation, with painting-quantity estimates to be used by respondent in carrying on its business as a painting subcontractor. Suit was instituted by the publication of summons and by the garnishment of certain funds of the respondent, located within this state. Respondent appeared specially and moved to quash the summons and garnishment. The trial court denied these motions. Respondent, reserving its special appearance, then filed an answer to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Mead v. AntonWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Mapes v. Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Nelson Equipment Co. v. GoodmanWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Cosh-Murray Co. v. TuttichWashington Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. International Harvester Co. v. Bank of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1981
  2. Staley v. StaleyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1976
  3. International Harvester Co. v. Bank of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1981
  4. Sommerfeldt v. Union Painting Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API