Legal Opinion

Tingey v. Haisch

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 18, 2005No. 23289-1-IIIPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

f 1 Lloyd Haisch entered into an oral agreement for legal services with attorney David Tingey. After more than three years had elapsed, Mr. Tingey brought an action for recovery of his attorney fees. At summary judgment, the trial court held that Mr. Tingey’s claim for attorney fees was subject to a six-year statute of limitations as an account receivable under RCW 4.16.040(2),1 not a three-year statute of limitations as an oral contract under RCW 4.16.080(3).2 3On appeal, the parties dispute the applicable statute of limitations. We conclude that the term “account receivable” as used in RCW…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Bishop v. MicheWashington Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tingey v. HaischWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Tingey v. HaischWashington Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Adci Corp. v. Bao NguyenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021
  4. Tingey v. HaischWashington Supreme Court · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API