Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance (1997)

The trial court should state its reasons for No. 72946-2-1 / 6 imposing sanctions clearly "on the record so that meaningful review can be had on appeal." Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance. 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036, 1040 (1997).

If before the case is called to be set for trial no party serves or files a demand that the case be tried by a jury of twelve, it shall be tried by a jury of six members with the concurrence of five being required to reach a verdict."). [28] Id. [29] RCW 71.09.050(3). [30] Id. [31] RCW 71.09.060(1); In re Det. of Keeney, 141 Wash.App. 318, 327 , 169 P.3d 852 (2007). [32] See, e.g., In re Williams, 147 Wash.2d at 489-91 , 55 P.3d 597 (concluding that CR 35, a civil discovery …

See CR 1 (The civil rules “shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” (emphasis added)); Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 498 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997) (“[0]ur overriding responsibility is to interpret the rules in a way that advances the underlying purpose of the rules, which is to reach a just determination in every action”).

See Burnet, 131 Wash.2d at 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 . ¶ 51 Accordingly, we reverse the default judgment and remand for trial, subject to further discovery orders that allow adequate time to examine the additional information for relevance and admissibility and avoid prejudice to either party by further delay.

See Burnet, 131 Wash.2d at 497 , 933 P.2d 1036 (excluding expert testimony was a severe sanction).

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wash.2d 484, 497 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997); Snedigar v. Hodderson, 53 Wash.App. 476, 487 , 768 P.2d 1 (1989), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 114 Wash.2d 153 , 786 P.2d 781 (1990).

See id. at 497-98 , 933 P.2d 1036 .

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997). 10 87782-8-I/11 The trial court’s order provides sufficiently explicit findings.

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997).

See, e.g., Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997).

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 , 496- 97, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997). [Stephen] did not make a full and fair disclosure per court rules.

See Magaña, 167 Wn.2d at 582 (quoting Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 684 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006)). 16 Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997) sets forth a three-pronged test to determine whether a harsh discovery sanction is warranted. 25 No. 81234-3-I/26 Magaña, 167 Wn.2d at 584 (quoting Wash. State Physicians Ins.

See Dempere v. Nelson, 886 P.2d 219, 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994), overruled 2 on separate grounds by Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)).4 3 Nevertheless, a court may award attorney’s fees if authorized by contract, statute, or a 4 recognized ground in equity.

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997). 11 CP at 373. 9 No. 75348-7-1 / 10 Here, only the vacated judgment was sealed.

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997).

See id. at 494 . 4 To the court's knowledge, the underlying guardianship case remains pending on remand; the ultimate disposition on the guardianship petition does not affect the outcome of the instant appeal. 5 In re the Dependency of M.H.P., No. 90468- 5 P.3d 832 (2014).

See id. at 494 .

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997).11 A. The Second Trial Court’s Partial Summary Judgment on Liability Remained Intact Following Remand Munce argues that the trial court erred by entering the default order.

See id. at 497 .

Majority at 344; see also Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d.484, 494, 933 P.2d 1036 (1997); Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 690 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006).

Majority at 798; see also Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wash.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997); Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wash.2d 677, 690 , 132 P.3d 115 (2006).

See Specialty Auto, 153 Wn.2d at 242-43 . ¶6 In construing the rule, we pointed out that we must interpret court rules in a manner “ ‘that advances the underlying purpose of the rules, which is to reach a just determination in every action.’ ” Id. at 245 (quoting Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 498 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)).

See id. at 242-43, 103 P.3d 792 . ¶ 6 In construing the rule, we pointed out that we must interpret court rules in a manner "`that advances the underlying purpose of the rules, which is to reach a just determination in every action.'" Id. at 245, 103 P.3d 792 (quoting Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wash.2d 484, 498 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997)).

See Burnet, 131 Wash.2d at 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (trial court has broad discretion in selecting sanction but it must have considered on the record whether lesser sanction would "probably" have sufficed).

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 497 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997); Snedigar v. Hodderson, 53 Wn.

See id. at 497-98 .

See Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484, 494 , 933 P.2d 1036 (1997) (citing Snedigar v. Hodderson, 53 Wn.