Legal Opinion

Aall v. Riverside Irrigation District

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1930No. 22318. Department OnePublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.

The plaintiff, Aall, seeks recovery from the defendant, irrigation district, for engineering services claimed to have been rendered by him to it during the whole of the period from June 1 to August 20,1923, when his employment by the district ceased. He commenced this action in October, 1927, more than four years after he ceased his employment, and therefore more than four years after his alleged cause of action accrued, unless it arose “upon a contract in writing” or as a “liability, express or implied, arising out of a written agreement.” The district resisted his claim of recovery upon the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Ingalls v. AngellWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Foote v. RobbinsWashington Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Palmer v. Marquette & Pacific Rolling Mill Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Levold v. PedersonWashington Supreme Court · 1924

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. DePhillips v. Zolt Construction Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. DePhillips v. Zolt Const. Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Central Heat, Inc. v. Daily Olympian, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Debritz v. SylviaWashington Supreme Court · 1944
  5. National Bank of Commerce v. PrestonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1977

5 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