Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Keck v. Collins

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 6, 2014No. 31128-7-IIIPublished

1ConcurrenceKorsmo, J.

¶52 (concurring) — Although the majority correctly reverses and remands this case because plaintiff’s counsel was entitled to more time to prepare his response to the summary judgment motions, I do not concur in the extension of the language from Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wn.2d 658, 663, 958 P.2d 301 (1998), into appellate court de novo oversight of the trial court’s calendar management authority. That subject has traditionally been left to the discretion of the trial court,11 and we should not overturn those types of decisions absent abuse of that discretion. The Folsom language only…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Folsom v. Burger KingWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. In Re Stranger CreekWashington Supreme Court · 1970
  4. McKee v. American Home Products Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1989
  5. King County Fire Protection District No. 16 v. Housing AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 1994

22 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