Legal Opinion

Merriman v. Cokeley

Washington Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 2010No. 83700-7PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Per curiam

¶1 Paul and Dianne Cokeley seek review of a Court of Appeals decision holding that Scott and Kim Merriman sufficiently proved a clear and well-defined boundary between the parties’ properties sufficient to establish the boundary by mutual recognition and acquiescence. Because we agree with the trial court that the Merrimans failed to prove a clear and well-defined boundary by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, we grant review, reverse the Court of Appeals, and reinstate the trial court’s judgment quieting title in the Cokeleys.

¶2 The Merrimans live on a waterfront lot they purchased from…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Bering v. ShareWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Robel v. Roundup Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Chaplin v. SandersWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  4. In re the Marriage of SchweitzerWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Matter of Marriage of SchweitzerWashington Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Department of Social & Health Services v. T.P.Washington Supreme Court · 2015
  2. McCleary v. StateWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  3. In Re the Personal Restraint of StensonWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Gorre v. City of TacomaWashington Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Lee v. KonradAlaska Supreme Court · 2014

41 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