McEwen v. Tucci Sons, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Hernandez v. Western Farmers Ass'n

    76 Wn. 2d 422 (Wash. 1969)   Cited 19 times

    As we have stated before, we do not retry factual disputes where there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. McEwen v. Tucci Sons, Inc., 71 Wn.2d 539, 429 P.2d 879 (1967). We do not agree with appellants that there was insufficient evidence to bring the question of negligence and proximate cause to the jury.

  2. Tucci Sons, Inc. v. Madsen, Inc.

    1 Wn. App. 1035 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 28 times
    In Tucci, however, the indemnification clause at issue was very similar to the indemnification clause in the Ace subcontract.

    McEwen obtained a judgment against Tucci which was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court. McEwen v. Tucci Sons, Inc., 71 Wn.2d 539, 429 P.2d 879 (1967). Tucci thereupon brought this action against Madsen seeking indemnity for the total amount of the judgment and costs it had been required to pay as a result of the McEwen action and appeal.

  3. Mills v. Inter Island Tel. Co.

    1 Wn. App. 651 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be interpreted in a light most favorable to the defendant and most strongly against the plaintiff. Leach v. Ellensburg Hosp. Ass'n, 65 Wn.2d 925, 400 P.2d 611 (1965); Parrish v. Ash, 32 Wn.2d 637, 203 P.2d 330 (1949). If there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict we may not retry the factual issues on appeal. Hernandez v. Western Farmers Ass'n, 76 Wn.2d 422, 456 P.2d 1020 (1969); McEwen v. Tucci Sons, Inc., 71 Wn.2d 539, 429 P.2d 879 (1967). Plaintiff also assigned error to the court's refusal to grant a new trial.