Legal Opinion

Engstrom v. Goodman

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 5, 2012No. 66557-0-IPublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.

¶1 Denise Engstrom, plaintiff in this per- . sonal injury suit, prevailed at mandatory arbitration. The *908attorney for defendant Rebecca Hardesten1 signed and submitted a request for a trial de novo. Counsel for Engstrom moved to strike the request on the ground that Hardesten had not authorized it. The trial court denied the motion and sanctioned counsel for Engstrom for communicating directly with Hardesten, a represented party, in order to obtain declarations supporting the motion. We affirm these rulings. Hardesten is entitled to proceed to trial de novo.

FACTS

¶2 The arbitrator found…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Rivers v. Washington State Conference of Mason ContractorsWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Rivers v. STATE CONF. OF MASON CONTRACTORSWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Haller v. WallisWashington Supreme Court · 1978
  5. King County Fire Protection District No. 16 v. Housing AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. O'Neill v. City of ShorelineCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. Puget Sound Security Patrol, Inc. v. William Bates And Kathryn BatesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  3. Eaden v. Estate of EvansCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  4. Admasu v. Port of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  5. Prostov v. Department of LicensingCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015

21 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