Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cohen v. Stingl

Washington Supreme Court

Decided March 13, 1958No. 34116Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOtt, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part) — The majority dismiss this appeal for the reason that the October 31st judgment shows on its face that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it, in that the ground relied upon by the trial court for vacating the judgment of January 11, 1956, is not a statutory ground; hence, the January 11th judgment was never legally vacated and the subsequent judgment is void. I do not agree with the majority that the appeal should be dismissed, for the following reasons:(1) The trial court vacated the January 11th judgment for the reason that adequate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Leavitt v. De YoungWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Brady v. OnffroyWashington Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Braden v. LewisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Multa Trina Ditch Co. v. StobaughSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API