Legal Opinion

Hamm v. City of Seattle

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 1927No. 19901. En BancPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In view of our holding in Wong Kee Jun v. Seattle, ante p. 479, 255 Pac. 645, where we have adopted a rule different from’ that enunciated in Jorguson v. Seattle, 80 Wash. 126, 141 Pac. 334, the departmental decision herein reported in ( Hamm v. Seattle) 140 Wash. 427, 249 Pac. 778, is modified by striking therefrom the following language:

“The objection is sound. Kincaid v. Seattle, 74 Wash. 617, 134 Pac. 504, 135 Pac. 820; Jorguson v. Seattle, 80 Wash. 126, 141 Pac. 334.
“But we do not think reversal should necessarily follow. A statement of law inapplicable under the facts and pleadings, but…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kincaid v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Wong Kee Jun v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Jorguson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Hamm v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Boitano v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  2. State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Clark v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Hamm v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1930
  5. State v. McCollumWashington Supreme Court · 1943

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