opening clause in Washington

2010"Whether or not a default will be granted in any given case, is within the court's discretion and dependent upon the circumstances." Graham v. Yakima Stock Brokers, Inc., 192 Wash. 121, 126 , 72 P.2d 1041 (1937). ¶ 13 Civil Rule 55(b)—which delineates the procedures for obtaining a default judgment *31 —contemplates such discretion. [6] The precatory language in the opening clause of CR 55(b) states that "judgment after default may be entered as follows." (Emphasis added.) The rule then provides different procedures for obtaining a default judgment, dependent upon how damages are pleaded in th

2010"Whether or not a default will be granted in any given case, is within the court's discretion and dependent upon the circumstances." Graham v. Yakima Stock Brokers, Inc., 192 Wash. 121, 126 , 72 P.2d 1041 (1937). ¶ 13 Civil Rule 55(b)—which delineates the procedures for obtaining a default judgment *31 —contemplates such discretion. [6] The precatory language in the opening clause of CR 55(b) states that "judgment after default may be entered as follows." (Emphasis added.) The rule then provides different procedures for obtaining a default judgment, dependent upon how damages are pleaded in th

2017Harris v. Drake, 152 Wn.2d at 486 .

2015But, in so arguing, DaVita ignores the opening clause *115 of the regulation: “If two or more applications meet all applicable review criteria.” Id. (emphasis added).

2015Our cases have long distinguished between agreements to pay interest at maturity and agreements to pay interest “until paid.” E.g., Bank v. Doherty, 42 Wash. 317, 329-30 , 84 P. 872 (1906). 9 The quoted statutory language was enacted by the Laws of 1895, ch. 136, § 4 and has not varied from that time. ¶22 While the original agreement called for six percent interest “until paid,” the modification did not.

2015Our cases have long distinguished between agreements to pay interest at maturity and agreements to pay interest “until paid.” E.g., Bank v. Doherty, 42 Wash. 317, 329-30 , 84 P. 872 (1906). 9 The quoted statutory language was enacted by the Laws of 1895, ch. 136, § 4 and has not varied from that time. ¶22 While the original agreement called for six percent interest “until paid,” the modification did not.

1983DePauw Univ. v. Ankeny, 97 Wash. 451 , 166 P. 1148 (1917).

1983DePauw Univ. v. Ankeny, 97 Wash. 451 , 166 P. 1148 (1917).

1950Apart from the familiar canon in the interpretation of contracts that every word and phrase must be presumed to have been employed with a purpose and must be given a meaning and effect whenever reasonably possible (Clark v. State Street Trust Co., 270 Mass. 140 , 169 N. E. 897 ; Hollingsworth v. Robe Lbr.

1950Apart from the familiar canon in the interpretation of contracts that every word and phrase must be presumed to have been employed with a purpose and must be given a meaning and effect whenever reasonably possible (Clark v. State Street Trust Co., 270 Mass. 140 , 169 N. E. 897 ; Hollingsworth v. Robe Lbr.

1950At the opening of the hearing, Mr. Jahnke stated that he had observed that Rule XXV,.of the Rules for Discipline of Attorneys, 193 Wash. 99 -a, provided that a member of the trial committee might be challenged for cause.

1950These parties have twice been before this court, McLean v. Archer, 32 Wn. (2d) 234, 201 P. (2d) 184 ; Archer v. Archer Blower & Pipe Co., 32 Wn. (2d) 246, 201 P. (2d) 191 .

1950These parties have twice been before this court, McLean v. Archer, 32 Wn. (2d) 234, 201 P. (2d) 184 ; Archer v. Archer Blower & Pipe Co., 32 Wn. (2d) 246, 201 P. (2d) 191 .

1940Bank & Trust Co. v. United States Trust Co., 184 Wash. 212, 219 , 50 P. (2d) 904 ), provides that the respondent insures the life of each member of the Seattle Postal Benefit Association “ (hereinafter called the Employee).” That is, the only persons insured or that could be insured under this contract of group insurance were members of the association.

1940Bank & Trust Co. v. United States Trust Co., 184 Wash. 212, 219 , 50 P. (2d) 904 ), provides that the respondent insures the life of each member of the Seattle Postal Benefit Association “ (hereinafter called the Employee).” That is, the only persons insured or that could be insured under this contract of group insurance were members of the association.

1920Newport v. Newport, supra; Stahl v. Schwartz, 81 Wash. 293 , 142 Pac. 651 ; Jesseph v. Westerberg, 94 Wash. 602 , 162 Pac. 1004 ; Matter of Harden, 177 App. Div. 831 , 164 N. Y.

1920Newport v. Newport, supra; Stahl v. Schwartz, 81 Wash. 293 , 142 Pac. 651 ; Jesseph v. Westerberg, 94 Wash. 602 , 162 Pac. 1004 ; Matter of Harden, 177 App. Div. 831 , 164 N. Y.

1920Newport v. Newport, supra; Stahl v. Schwartz, 81 Wash. 293 , 142 Pac. 651 ; Jesseph v. Westerberg, 94 Wash. 602 , 162 Pac. 1004 ; Matter of Harden, 177 App. Div. 831 , 164 N. Y.

1920Newport v. Newport, supra; Stahl v. Schwartz, 81 Wash. 293 , 142 Pac. 651 ; Jesseph v. Westerberg, 94 Wash. 602 , 162 Pac. 1004 ; Matter of Harden, 177 App. Div. 831 , 164 N. Y.

1920Newport v. Newport, supra; Stahl v. Schwartz, 81 Wash. 293 , 142 Pac. 651 ; Jesseph v. Westerberg, 94 Wash. 602 , 162 Pac. 1004 ; Matter of Harden, 177 App. Div. 831 , 164 N. Y.

1920Newport v. Newport, supra; Stahl v. Schwartz, 81 Wash. 293 , 142 Pac. 651 ; Jesseph v. Westerberg, 94 Wash. 602 , 162 Pac. 1004 ; Matter of Harden, 177 App. Div. 831 , 164 N. Y.