Legal Opinion

Christiansen v. Anderson

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1934No. 25207. Department TwoPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolcomb, J.

This action was instituted to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The jury returned a verdict for a large sum in favor of appellant, upon which respondents moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative for a new trial, based upon all the statutory grounds. After considering the matter, the trial court granted the motion for judgment n. o. v. and also the alternative motion for a new trial, in case the judgment should be reversed on appeal.

Respondents open their brief with a motion to strike the statement of facts, upon the ground that it was not served or filed…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Simmons v. GardnerWashington Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Eberhart v. MurphyWashington Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Hightower v. Union Savings & Trust Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Ton v. StetsonWashington Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Saunders v. First National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Hayes v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Uhr v. EatonUtah Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Brooks v. BoldeWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Bender v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1983

1 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