Legal Opinion

Little v. King

Washington Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2007No. 77560-5PublishedCited by 61 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*699¶1 — A driver whose vehicle collided with another and an underinsured motorist insurer moved to vacate a default judgment. The driver, who had not filed an answer, came to the default judgment hearing but decided not to contest entry of judgment. The insurer, who was given notice of the litigation, chose not to intervene. We conclude that these moving parties have failed to make the required showing to set aside the judgment. We also conclude that because the insurer failed to intervene, it was not a party and was not entitled to notice of the hearing.

Chambers, J.

¶2 The driver and the insurer…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Ackra Direct Marketing Corp. And Michael Ackerman, Individually v. Fingerhut Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  2. Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Widicus v. Southwestern Electric Cooperative, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1960
  4. White v. HolmWashington Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Jones v. HoganWashington Supreme Court · 1960

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

3Cited by61 opinions

  1. Magana v. Hyundai Motor AmericaWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Volk v. DeMeerleerWashington Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Boguch v. Landover Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Neil Rush v. William I. BlackburnCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  5. Trinity Universal Insurance v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013

56 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