Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In Re the Estate of Levas

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1949No. 30687Published

1ConcurrenceSimpson, J.

(concurring)—I concur in the result reached by the majority. I cannot agree, however, that the record justifies this court’s interpretation of the will. My reason is that a trial was had, evidence was introduced, and we do not have before us the statement of the trial proceedings. Without the statement of facts, we are unable to ascertain just what evidence was introduced. As has been stated in many of our opinions, the pleadings may have been amended, stipulations may have been entered into relative to the facts, and inadmissible evidence may have been introduced without objection.

In the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Nash v. NashWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Mattice v. DundenWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Black v. PorterWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Jeschke v. JeschkeWashington Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. CarlsonWashington Supreme Court · 1938

1 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