Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Maddixgreen2 sentences2020In Maddix, Division Three concluded that because the affidavits of the parties “raise an issue of fact which cannot be resolved without the taking of testimony,” the court “erred in vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct.” Maddix, 41 Wn. 2000When a CR 60(b)(4) motion does raise disputed facts, a court errs by ‘Vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct.” In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wn. | 1 | 5 |
Allen v. Allengreen2 sentences2000When a CR 60(b)(4) motion does raise disputed facts, a court errs by "vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct." In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wash.App. 248, 252 , 703 P.2d 1062 (1985). [8] Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 593 , 794 P.2d 526 (1990), review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1009 , 805 P.2d 813 (1991); see also Allen v. Allen, 12 Wash.App. 795, 797 , 532 P.2d 623 (1975) (CR 60(e) "allows the adverse party an opportunity to file a response and prepare to meet the issue at a scheduled hearing.") [9] 322 U.S. 2000When a CR 60(b)(4) motion does raise disputed facts, a court errs by "vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct." In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wash.App. 248, 252 , 703 P.2d 1062 (1985). [8] Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 593 , 794 P.2d 526 (1990), review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1009 , 805 P.2d 813 (1991); see also Allen v. Allen, 12 Wash.App. 795, 797 , 532 P.2d 623 (1975) (CR 60(e) "allows the adverse party an opportunity to file a response and prepare to meet the issue at a scheduled hearing.") [9] 322 U.S. | 1 | 1 |
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.green2 sentences2000When a CR 60(b)(4) motion does raise disputed facts, a court errs by "vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct." In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wash.App. 248, 252 , 703 P.2d 1062 (1985). [8] Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 593 , 794 P.2d 526 (1990), review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1009 , 805 P.2d 813 (1991); see also Allen v. Allen, 12 Wash.App. 795, 797 , 532 P.2d 623 (1975) (CR 60(e) "allows the adverse party an opportunity to file a response and prepare to meet the issue at a scheduled hearing.") [9] 322 U.S. 2000When a CR 60(b)(4) motion does raise disputed facts, a court errs by "vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct." In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wash.App. 248, 252 , 703 P.2d 1062 (1985). [8] Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 593 , 794 P.2d 526 (1990), review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1009 , 805 P.2d 813 (1991); see also Allen v. Allen, 12 Wash.App. 795, 797 , 532 P.2d 623 (1975) (CR 60(e) "allows the adverse party an opportunity to file a response and prepare to meet the issue at a scheduled hearing.") [9] 322 U.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stanley v. Cole
green
1 sentence2018App. at 298 n.7 (quoting Maddix, 41 Wn. at 252). 8 No. 77251-1-1/9 882, 239 P.3d 611 (2010). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stoulil v. Epstein
green
1 sentence2018When a CR 60(b)(4) motion raises disputed facts,"a court errs by 'vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct." Stoulil, 101 Wn. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lindgren v. Lindgren
green
2 sentences2000When a CR 60(b)(4) motion does raise disputed facts, a court errs by "vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct." In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wash.App. 248, 252 , 703 P.2d 1062 (1985). [8] Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 593 , 794 P.2d 526 (1990), review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1009 , 805 P.2d 813 (1991); see also Allen v. Allen, 12 Wash.App. 795, 797 , 532 P.2d 623 (1975) (CR 60(e) "allows the adverse party an opportunity to file a response and prepare to meet the issue at a scheduled hearing.") [9] 322 U.S. 2000When a CR 60(b)(4) motion does raise disputed facts, a court errs by "vacating the judgment without first hearing and weighing testimony regarding fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct." In re Marriage of Maddix, 41 Wash.App. 248, 252 , 703 P.2d 1062 (1985). [8] Lindgren v. Lindgren, 58 Wash.App. 588, 593 , 794 P.2d 526 (1990), review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1009 , 805 P.2d 813 (1991); see also Allen v. Allen, 12 Wash.App. 795, 797 , 532 P.2d 623 (1975) (CR 60(e) "allows the adverse party an opportunity to file a response and prepare to meet the issue at a scheduled hearing.") [9] 322 U.S. | 1 | 2000–2000 |