Hudson v. Hapner
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentSanders, J.
¶40 (dissenting) — RCW 7.06.060(1) and MAR 7.3 recognize a party can withdraw its request for a trial de novo, and nothing in chapter 7.06 RCW or MAR 7 places any limitation on when a party can do so — nor is such a limitation necessary for the provisions to function. This court should hold, as the Court of Appeals held, that Clifford Hapner is entitled to withdraw his trial request. See Hudson v. Hapner, 146 Wn. App. 280, 290, 187 P.3d 311 (2008).
¶41 Instead, the majority creates a limitation on when a party can withdraw its trial request, precluding a party from doing so once the trial has…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Haywood v. ArandaWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Haywood v. ArandaWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Hudson v. HapnerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.