Legal Opinion
Bowker v. McDonald
Washington Supreme Court
Decided January 10, 1957No. 33646PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.
This is an appeal from an order granting defendants McDonald (respondents) a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence after a verdict of $5,330 for the plaintiffs (appellants). One Harry Tamal-wash, an additional defendant, who was cross-complained against by defendants McDonald and against whom the jury brought in a verdict, is not involved in the motion for a new trial or in the appeal from the order granting it. The McDonalds will be referred to hereinafter as though they were the only defendants.
The plaintiffs testified that they, in their car, were following the Tamalwash car…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1929
- Hilker v. Western Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Attleboro Mfg. Co. v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1917
- Douglas v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1924
- Johnson v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1938
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1957
- Hamilton v. State Farm InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1974
- Besel v. Viking InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Besel v. Viking Ins. Co. of WisconsinCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Nelson v. SchnautzCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.