Legal Opinion

Canfield v. Seattle Cornice Works

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1922No. 17319PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMackintosh, J.

-The appellant urges as its principal assignment of error the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. Made a part of the record, is the memorandum decision of the judge before whom the trial of the case took place, and it so clearly states the facts going to make up this personal injury action and the law bearing upon the question suggested by this assignment of error that we could not improve upon it, and therefore quote and adopt it as our decision upon this point:

*319“Plaintiff sues for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained from being struck by defendant’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. MeyerkampWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Deitchler v. BallWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Stephenson v. PartonWashington Supreme Court · 1916
  4. State v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Plastino v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rasor v. Retail Credit Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1976
  2. McUne v. FuquaWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Lucchesi v. ReynoldsWashington Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Dehoney v. GjardeWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  5. McUne v. FuquaWashington Supreme Court · 1953

1 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