Hanson v. Lee

6 Citing cases

  1. Calaway v. Jones

    177 Mont. 516 (Mont. 1978)   Cited 7 times

    State ex rel. Johnstone v. District Court (1957), 132 Mont. 377, 319 P.2d 957; Cremer v. Braaten, supra. The unanimous weight of authority demonstrates that the rule is equally applicable to a defendant's failure to diligently prosecute a cross-claim or counterclaim. Seaman v. Superior Court of Marin County (1920), 183 Cal. 47, 190 P. 441; Harris v. Harris (1948), 65 Nev. 342, 196 P.2d 402; Pettine v. Rogers (1958), 63 N.M. 457, 321 P.2d 638; Hanson v. Lee (1970), 3 Wn. App. 461, 476 P.2d 550; 27 C.J.S. Dismissal Nonsuit § 65. It was initially held in Montana that mere lapse of time is sufficient in itself to justify a dismissal.

  2. Lehmann v. Board of Trustees

    576 P.2d 397 (Wash. 1978)   Cited 7 times
    In Lehmann v. Board of Trustees, 89 Wn.2d 874, 576 P.2d 397 (1978), the court held that, ordinarily, the conduct of a private college is not state action.

    While entitled a conclusion of law, it is a mixed finding of fact and conclusion. It implies a factual determination sufficient to treat it as a mixed finding and conclusion and we do so. Hanson v. Lee, 3 Wn. App. 461, 476 P.2d 550 (1970). It was supported by substantial evidence and we are bound by it.

  3. Polello v. Knapp

    68 Wn. App. 809 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 8 times

    They also contend the claim at issue had not been joined for more than 1 year and Mr. Knapp should have noted the matter for trial himself. They cite Snohomish and Hanson v. Lee, 3 Wn. App. 461, 476 P.2d 550 (1970). [4] A. CR 41(b)(1) Is Mandatory. As stated in Gott, at 506, it has consistently been held that dismissal under CR 41(b)(1) is mandatory when the circumstances fit within the rule.

  4. Roggow v. Hagerty

    27 Wn. App. 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 9 times

    The trial court's determination as to the extinguishment of the easement is reversed and remanded for consideration of the extent and location of it. See Seattle v. Nazarenus, 60 Wn.2d 657, 374 P.2d 1014 (1962); Hanson v. Lee, 3 Wn. App. 461, 466, 476 P.2d 550 (1970). GREEN, C.J., and McINTURFF, J., concur.

  5. Maynard v. England

    538 P.2d 551 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 5 times

    Findings of fact are verities on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support them. Hays Merchandise, Inc. v. Dewey, 78 Wn.2d 343, 474 P.2d 270 (1970); Enterprise Timber, Inc. v. Washington Title Ins. Co., 76 Wn.2d 479, 457 P.2d 600 (1969). Findings of fact which are conclusions of law will be interpreted as such. State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 81 Wn.2d 259, 501 P.2d 290 (1972); Hanson v. Lee, 3 Wn. App. 461, 476 P.2d 550 (1970). [3, 4] The Maynards contend that the Ravettis violated the usury statute, RCW 19.52, because of the $7,000 discount imposed when the Ravettis accepted the negotiable instrument from Mabel's Tavern, Inc.

  6. Hawaiian Ins. v. Federated Am. Ins. Co.

    13 Wn. App. 7 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 21 times
    Indicating that phrase " `resident of the same household' " was to be interpreted liberally as an inclusionary clause

    If findings of fact are actually conclusions of law, they will be interpreted as such. State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, 81 Wn.2d 259, 501 P.2d 290 (1972); Hanson v. Lee, 3 Wn. App. 461, 476 P.2d 550 (1970); State v. Dorrough, 2 Wn. App. 820, 470 P.2d 230 (1970). The oral opinion of a trial court may be used to interpret the trial court's findings of fact if the findings make no statement concerning the subject or are ambiguous or vague.