Logue v. Swanson's Food, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Helm v. State

    No. 71664-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2014)

    State v. Douglas. 128 Wn. Add. 555. 561. 116 P.3d 1012 (2005V "Each party is entitled, when the evidence warrants it, to have his theory of the case submitted to the jury under appropriate and properly requested instructions." Logue v. Swanson's Food, Inc.. 8 Wn.App. 460, 463, 507 P.2d 1204 (1973). In her amended complaint, Helm alleged that the Department failed to make the necessary upgrades and repairs to keep the highway safe at Slope 1867.

  2. Henderson v. Pennwalt Corp.

    41 Wn. App. 547 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 22 times
    Establishing that former CR 43(b) and current ER 611 are the same

    "Each party is entitled, when the evidence warrants it, to have his theory of the case submitted to the jury under appropriate and properly requested instructions." Logue v. Swanson's Food, Inc., 8 Wn. App. 460, 463, 507 P.2d 1204 (1973); Elmer v. Vanderford, 74 Wn.2d 546, 445 P.2d 612 (1968). Because of the conflicting evidence on whether management was aware of the hostile environment created by the supervisor's sexual harassment, Pennwalt was entitled to have its proposed instruction 7 submitted to the jury.