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
- Kincaid v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1913
- Wong Kee Jun v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1927
- Jorguson v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Hamm v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by6 opinions
- Boitano v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- Clark v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1930
- Hamm v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1930
- State v. McCollumWashington Supreme Court · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.