green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SHADOW WOOD HOMEOWNERS VS. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP
(2×)
Fair v. Howard, 6 Nev. 304, 308 (1871) ("The question is not whether the consideration is adequate, but whether it is valuable."); see also Poole v. Watts, 139 Wash. App. 1018 (2007) (unpublished disposition) (stating that the fact that the foreclosure SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 22 (0) 1947A sale purchaser purchased the property for a "low price" did not in itself put the purchaser on notice that anything was amiss with the sale).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
SHADOW WOOD HOMEOWNERS VS. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP
Fair v. Howard, 6 Nev. 304, 308 (1871) ("The question is not whether the consideration is adequate, but whether it is valuable."); see also Poole v. Watts, 139 Wash. App. 1018 (2007) (unpublished disposition) (stating that the fact that the foreclosure SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 22 (0) 1947A sale purchaser purchased the property for a "low price" did not in itself put the purchaser on notice that anything was amiss with the sale).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Washington
v.
Lindsey Eugene Vernon
v.
Lindsey Eugene Vernon
No. 58010-8-I.
Court of Appeals of Washington.
Jun 18, 2007.
139 Wash. App. 1018
Published
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 05-1-10459-3, Richard D. Eadie, J., entered April 3, 2006. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.