Atkins v. Clein
Washington Supreme Court
1Dissent
As I view this case, the evidence produced at the trial was not sufficient to permit a verdict for respondents. For this reason, questions relative to whether there was error in the instructions given are not controlling in the disposition of this appeal.
In the following cases, we held that, if the evidence did not disclose facts sufficient to support a verdict for the proponent of the motion, it was error for the trial court to grant a new trial for irregularities committed in submitting the case to the jury: Grass v. Seattle, 100 Wn. 542, 171 P. 533; Adams v.Anderson Middleton Lumber Co.,…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Boyce v. BrownArizona Supreme Court · 1938
- Wells v. Ferry-Baker Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1910
- Butler v. RuleArizona Supreme Court · 1926
- Dahl v. WagnerWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Rising v. VeatchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Atkins v. CleinWashington Supreme Court · 1940