general nature claim in Washington

2019“Under our liberal rules of procedure, pleadings are primarily intended to give notice to the court and the opponent of the general nature of the claim -6- No. 80106-6-117 asserted.” Lewis, 45 Wn.

2001CR 8(a) requires that a pleading contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled.” CR 8(f), reflecting modern liberal pleading, states that “[a]ll pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” “ [P] leadings are primarily intended to give notice to the court and the opponent of the general nature of the claim asserted.” Lewis v. Bell, 45 Wn.

1998CrR 4.7(b)(1); CrR 4.7(b)(2)(xiv); CrR 4.7(h)(7); State v. Nelson, 14 Wn.

1980App. 658 , 545 P.2d 36 (1975), we upheld a trial court order holding a defendant in contempt for failure to comply with a discovery order which required him (1) to state the general nature of his defense, (2) to state whether he intended to rely on the defense of alibi and, if so, to provide a list of alibi witnesses, and (3) to provide a list of general defense witnesses and their statements.

2008We liberally construe pleading requirements in order “to facilitate proper decision on the merits, not to erect formal and burdensome impediments to the litigation process.” State v. Adams, 107 Wn.2d 611, 620 , 732 P.2d 149 (1987). ¶32 The complaint in this case gave sufficient notice to Respondents of the nature of the claim brought against them.

2008We liberally construe pleading requirements in order “to facilitate proper decision on the merits, not to erect formal and burdensome impediments to the litigation process.” State v. Adams, 107 Wn.2d 611, 620 , 732 P.2d 149 (1987). ¶32 The complaint in this case gave sufficient notice to Respondents of the nature of the claim brought against them.

2006Dumas v. Gagner, 137 Wash.2d 268, 282 , 971 P.2d 17 (1999).

2006Dumas v. Gagner, 137 Wn.2d 268, 282 , 971 P.2d 17 (1999).

2006Dumas v. Gagner, 137 Wash.2d 268, 282 , 971 P.2d 17 (1999).

2006Dumas v. Gagner, 137 Wn.2d 268, 282 , 971 P.2d 17 (1999).

2012The State also submitted a motion for sanctions in January 2009 for the defense’s failure to, inter alia, state the general nature of the defense and whether the defendant would rely on alibi as mandated by CrR 4.7(b)(2)(xii) and (xiv). 7 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.

2012The State also submitted a motion for sanctions in January 2009 for the defense’s failure to, inter alia, state the general nature of the defense and whether the defendant would rely on alibi as mandated by CrR 4.7(b)(2)(xii) and (xiv). 7 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L.

1978App. 414, 422 , 542 P.2d 122 (1975): 5 Thus, it is apparent that the admission by the attorney as to the general nature of the defense related to his management of the litigation and was not violative of a substantive right.

1978Wigmore, Evidence § 1063 (1972); cf. Dastagir v. Dastagir, 109 Cal. App. 2d 809 , 241 P.2d 656 (1952).

1978Wigmore, Evidence § 1063 (1972); cf. Dastagir v. Dastagir, 109 Cal. App. 2d 809 , 241 P.2d 656 (1952).

1977The general nature of the exception taken is emphasized by the fact the exception treats the instruction as referring generally to "an aggravation situation" or as "an aggravation of a *125 pre-existing condition." Cf. Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607 , 547 P.2d 1221 (1976); Johnson v. Tsukahara, 51 Hawaii 39 , 448 P.2d 822 (1968); Davis v. Angell, 218 Ore. 443 , 345 P.2d 405 (1959).

1977The general nature of the exception taken is emphasized by the fact the exception treats the instruction as referring generally to "an aggravation situation" or as "an aggravation of a *125 pre-existing condition." Cf. Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607 , 547 P.2d 1221 (1976); Johnson v. Tsukahara, 51 Hawaii 39 , 448 P.2d 822 (1968); Davis v. Angell, 218 Ore. 443 , 345 P.2d 405 (1959).

1977The general nature of the exception taken is emphasized by the fact the exception treats the instruction as referring generally to "an aggravation situation" or as "an aggravation of a *125 pre-existing condition." Cf. Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607 , 547 P.2d 1221 (1976); Johnson v. Tsukahara, 51 Hawaii 39 , 448 P.2d 822 (1968); Davis v. Angell, 218 Ore. 443 , 345 P.2d 405 (1959).

1977The general nature of the exception taken is emphasized by the fact the exception treats the instruction as referring generally to "an aggravation situation" or as "an aggravation of a *125 pre-existing condition." Cf. Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607 , 547 P.2d 1221 (1976); Johnson v. Tsukahara, 51 Hawaii 39 , 448 P.2d 822 (1968); Davis v. Angell, 218 Ore. 443 , 345 P.2d 405 (1959).

1977The general nature of the exception taken is emphasized by the fact the exception treats the instruction as referring generally to "an aggravation situation" or as "an aggravation of a *125 pre-existing condition." Cf. Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607 , 547 P.2d 1221 (1976); Johnson v. Tsukahara, 51 Hawaii 39 , 448 P.2d 822 (1968); Davis v. Angell, 218 Ore. 443 , 345 P.2d 405 (1959).

1977The general nature of the exception taken is emphasized by the fact the exception treats the instruction as referring generally to "an aggravation situation" or as "an aggravation of a *125 pre-existing condition." Cf. Haslund v. Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607 , 547 P.2d 1221 (1976); Johnson v. Tsukahara, 51 Hawaii 39 , 448 P.2d 822 (1968); Davis v. Angell, 218 Ore. 443 , 345 P.2d 405 (1959).