Legal Opinion

Lloyd Enterprises, Inc. v. Longview Plumbing & Heating Co.

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 20, 1998No. 39666-8-IPublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.

— A trial court is vested with discretion to continue a proceeding pending against a corporation that is party to a merger as if the merger did not occur. Because the rules permitting pro se representation do not apply to corporations, a corporation subject to such a ruling must continue to be represented by an attorney even if the result of the merger leaves a partnership as the surviving entity. The trial court, therefore, did not err in entering a default judgment in favor of Longview Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., and Lloyd Enterprises, Inc., when Berry, Inc., failed to file an answer…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Krikava v. WebberCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
  3. Zimmerman v. KyteCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
  4. Sunde v. Contel of CaliforniaNevada Supreme Court · 1996
  5. United Accounts, Inc. v. Teladvantage, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Wetzel v. SchlenvogtNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Dutch Village Mall, LLC v. PellettiCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  3. Cottringer v. Employment Security DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  4. Biomed Comm, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH BD.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2008
  5. Biomed Comm, Inc. v. Department of Health, Board of PharmacyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008

12 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