Legal Opinion
Alvarez v. Banach
Washington Supreme Court
Decided March 31, 2005No. 75153-6PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 This case requires us to determine whether a declaration of delivery without further proof that a request for a trial de novo has been served complies with the filing requirements under Mandatory Arbitration Rule (MAR) 7.1. Division Two of the Court of Appeals determined that the declaration of delivery sufficiently indicated the time, place, and manner of delivery and that proof of actual receipt was not necessary. We disagree and reverse.
C. Johnson, J.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On September 4, 2000, Sergio Alvarez filed a personal injury action against John Banach in superior court,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Nevers v. Fireside, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
- Terry v. City of TacomaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Manius v. BoydCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- Terry v. City of TacomaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Berryman v. MetcalfCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Alvarez v. BanachWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Seto v. American Elevator, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
- Seto v. American Elevator, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
- Brackman v. City of Lake Forest ParkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.