quoted rule in Washington

1967Recently in Baxter v. Greyhound Corp., 65 Wn.2d 421, 426 , 397 P.2d 857 (1964), we said: In reviewing this question, we are bound by the oft-cited and quoted rule that we must accept as true that view of the evidence most favorable to plaintiffs, and must bear in mind the admonition first enunciated in McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 465 , 38 Pac. 1119 , that: “. . .

1967Recently in Baxter v. Greyhound Corp., 65 Wn.2d 421, 426 , 397 P.2d 857 (1964), we said: In reviewing this question, we are bound by the oft-cited and quoted rule that we must accept as true that view of the evidence most favorable to plaintiffs, and must bear in mind the admonition first enunciated in McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 465 , 38 Pac. 1119 , that: “. . .

2018Norman, 61 Wn.

1982The court quoted the standard of dangerousness set forth by the district court below in Suzuki v. Alba, 438 F. Supp. 1106 (D.

1982Hawaii 1977): The proper standard is that which requires a finding of imminent and substantial danger as evidenced by a recent overt act, attempt or threat. 438 F. Supp. at 1110 , citing Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078, 1093-94 (E.D.

1975Appellant argues that the trial court erred in thus refusing to give the quoted instruction because of the rule stated as follows in State v. Carothers, 84 Wn.2d 256, 269 , 525 P.2d 731 (1974): [A] cautionary instruction is mandatory if the prosecution relies upon the testimony of an accomplice.

1975Appellant argues that the trial court erred in thus refusing to give the quoted instruction because of the rule stated as follows in State v. Carothers, 84 Wn.2d 256, 269 , 525 P.2d 731 (1974): [A] cautionary instruction is mandatory if the prosecution relies upon the testimony of an accomplice.

1973App. 401 , 481 P.2d 920 (1971), with regard to-the quoted rule in Dry den, at page 405: Implicit in this rule is the requirement that the purchaser be willing to purchase, and that in contracting with the seller, he has agreed to purchase the property.

1973Lysick v. Walcom, supra, points out that consent permits an attorney to represent conflicting interests and that prior California cases requiring an attorney to resign instead appear to so hold without regard to rules 6 and 7 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct approved by the Supreme Court, which rules permit representation of adverse interests after disclosure of the relation (rule 6) and with the clients’ consent (rule 7). 258 Cal. App. 2d at 147 n.6.

1973Lysick v. Walcom, supra , points out that consent permits an attorney to represent conflicting interests and that prior California cases requiring an attorney to resign instead appear to so hold without regard to rules 6 and 7 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct approved by the Supreme Court, which rules permit representation of adverse interests after disclosure of the relation (rule 6) and with the clients' consent (rule 7). 258 Cal. App.2d at 147 n. 6.

1967Recently in Baxter v. Greyhound Corp., 65 Wn.2d 421, 426 , 397 P.2d 857 (1964), we said: In reviewing this question, we are bound by the oft-cited and quoted rule that we must accept as true that view of the evidence most favorable to plaintiffs, and must bear in mind the admonition first enunciated in McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 465 , 38 Pac. 1119 , that: “. . .

1967Recently in Baxter v. Greyhound Corp., 65 Wn.2d 421, 426 , 397 P.2d 857 (1964), we said: In reviewing this question, we are bound by the oft-cited and quoted rule that we must accept as true that view of the evidence most favorable to plaintiffs, and must bear in mind the admonition first enunciated in McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 465 , 38 Pac. 1119 , that: “. . .

1966Mosher v. Mosher, 25 Wn. (2d) 778, 172 P. (2d) 259 ; St.

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1957The amount is only a máthematical calculation and is authorized by the quoted rule and the following cases: Crutcher v. Scott Publishing Co., 42 Wn. (2d) 89, 253 P. (2d) 925 ; Ball v. Stokely Foods, Inc., 37 Wn. (2d) 79, 221 P. (2d) 832 ; Essig v. Keating, 158 Wash. 443 , 291 Pac. 323 ; Domke v. Ernst Brothers & Farnham, 120 Wash. 358 , 207 Pac. 1 ; American Iron & Wire Works v. Fischer Auto Bed & Camp Co., 109 Wash. 279 , 186 Pac. 877 ; Meza v. Pfister Co., 54 Wash. 7 , 102 Pac. 871 .

1955S. 56, § 6 c., is: “The navigable quality of a watercourse need not be continuous, but the seasons of navigability must occur regularly, and be of sufficient duration to subserve a useful public purpose for commercial intercourse.” The quoted rule was recognized by this court in Monroe Mill Co. v. Menzel, 35 Wash. 487 , 77 Pac. 813 , holding that a stream which, in its natural state, is capable of floating shingle bolts after heavy rains and during freshets occurring regularly during the spring and fall, is a navigable stream.

1955S. 56, § 6 c., is: “The navigable quality of a watercourse need not be continuous, but the seasons of navigability must occur regularly, and be of sufficient duration to subserve a useful public purpose for commercial intercourse.” The quoted rule was recognized by this court in Monroe Mill Co. v. Menzel, 35 Wash. 487 , 77 Pac. 813 , holding that a stream which, in its natural state, is capable of floating shingle bolts after heavy rains and during freshets occurring regularly during the spring and fall, is a navigable stream.

1952Co., 40 Wn. (2d) 379, 243 P. (2d) 636 . *20 The quoted instruction given (No. 12%) was adequate upon the subject discussed therein, and the court’s refusal to give the requested instructions was not error.

1950The court may always consider the surrounding circumstances leading up to the execution of an agreement, not to evidence an intent contrary to that expressed in the agreement, but to place the court in the same position as the parties. 3 Williston on Contracts (Rev. ed.) 1804, § 629; Leavenworth State Bank v. Cashmere Apple Co., 118 Wash. 356 , 204 Pac. 5 .” The majority opinion, contrary to the above quoted rule, considers the parol evidence admitted by the trial court regarding the preliminary negotiations between the parties and, adopting its findings of fact, holds that-the terms of the un

1950The court may always consider the surrounding circumstances leading up to the execution of an agreement, not to evidence an intent contrary to that expressed in the agreement, but to place the court in the same position as the parties. 3 Williston on Contracts (Rev. ed.) 1804, § 629; Leavenworth State Bank v. Cashmere Apple Co., 118 Wash. 356 , 204 Pac. 5 .” The majority opinion, contrary to the above quoted rule, considers the parol evidence admitted by the trial court regarding the preliminary negotiations between the parties and, adopting its findings of fact, holds that-the terms of the un

1946Osterhout v. Peterson, 198 Wash. 166 , 87 P. (2d) 987 .

1946Osterhout v. Peterson, 198 Wash. 166 , 87 P. (2d) 987 .

1946Blodgett v. Lowe, 24 Wn. (2d) 931, 167 P. (2d) 997 , is the most recent pronouncement of this court upon the subject, and parallels the factual situation presented here.

1940In so holding, the court stated: “The principle laid down in Pierrepont v. Edwards [ 25 N. Y. 128 ] has not been criticised or reversed.

1938In passing upon a question similar to the one involved here, the supreme court of Montana, in Stiemke v. Jankovich, 72 Mont. 363 , 233 Pac. 904 , said: “Each of the parties having moved for a directed verdict, as indicated, had nothing more been done the court would have been justified in submitting the case to the jury on the one question as to the value of the piano, considering all other issues as submitted on an agreed statement of facts. . . .

1938In passing upon a question similar to the one involved here, the supreme court of Montana, in Stiemke v. Jankovich, 72 Mont. 363 , 233 Pac. 904 , said: “Each of the parties having moved for a directed verdict, as indicated, had nothing more been done the court would have been justified in submitting the case to the jury on the one question as to the value of the piano, considering all other issues as submitted on an agreed statement of facts. . . .

1937It is asserted that smoke stacks are certainly appurtenances and come within the rule of this court laid down in Filley v. Christopher, 39 Wash. 22 , 80 Pac. 834 , 109 Am.

1937It is asserted that smoke stacks are certainly appurtenances and come within the rule of this court laid down in Filley v. Christopher, 39 Wash. 22 , 80 Pac. 834 , 109 Am.

1932Appellant relies on the case of Morehouse v. Everett, 141 Wash. 399 , 252 Pac. 157 , 58 A. L.

1932Appellant relies on the case of Morehouse v. Everett, 141 Wash. 399 , 252 Pac. 157 , 58 A. L.

1932Co., 152 Wash. 272 , 277 Pac. 999 .

1932Co., 152 Wash. 272 , 277 Pac. 999 .

1931In the recent case of State v. Powell, 159 Wash. 285 , 293 Pac. 280 , the situation was different.

1931In the recent case of State v. Powell, 159 Wash. 285 , 293 Pac. 280 , the situation was different.

1930Butter v. Supreme Court of Foresters, 53 Wash. 118 , 101 Pac. 481 , 26 L.

1930Butter v. Supreme Court of Foresters, 53 Wash. 118 , 101 Pac. 481 , 26 L.

1918The lien claim of De Hart was based upon a written agreement which provided that the rental of $125 per month should be paid “at the time each raft of logs upon which said donkey engine is to be worked is sold, and if not so paid said Leo De Hart can declare this agreement at an end.” The agreement also contained an option to purchase, but that does not appear to be material 'here., • It is argued: that the quoted clause from the rental contract brings the intervener’s case within the rule laid down by this court in Anderson v. Tingley, 24 Wash. 537 , 64 Pac. 747 , 85 Am.

1918The lien claim of De Hart was based upon a written agreement which provided that the rental of $125 per month should be paid “at the time each raft of logs upon which said donkey engine is to be worked is sold, and if not so paid said Leo De Hart can declare this agreement at an end.” The agreement also contained an option to purchase, but that does not appear to be material 'here., • It is argued: that the quoted clause from the rental contract brings the intervener’s case within the rule laid down by this court in Anderson v. Tingley, 24 Wash. 537 , 64 Pac. 747 , 85 Am.