Legal Opinion

Large v. Shively

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1936No. 26178. Department OnePublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSteinert, J.

This action arises out of a controversy over the title to certain lands fronting on Hood Canal. The complaint set forth two causes of action. The first cause proceeded upon the theory that, considering the lands as comprising two tracts adjoining each other at their easterly and westerly ends, respectively, the boundary line between them had become obscure and uncertain, resulting in a dispute between the respective owners, in consequence of which the complaint sought a decree directing that the exact boundary line be erected, established and properly marked. The sec ond cause of action,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Pacific Iron & Steel Works v. GoerigWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Lownsdale v. Grays Harbor Boom Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Russell v. Mutual Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Sanders v. SheetsWashington Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Swak v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1952
  2. James v. UNKNOWN TRUSTEES, ETC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1950
  3. In Re Krueger's EstateWashington Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Large v. ShivelyWashington Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Watkins v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1940

8 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