Parker v. Dept. of Labor Industries

2 Citing cases

  1. Puget Sound Etc. v. Dept. of L. I

    26 Wn. 2d 550 (Wash. 1946)   Cited 3 times

    [2] In such a situation, the rule that the decision of the joint board shall be presumed to be prima facie correct does not apply on appeal to the courts. Parker v. Department of Labor Industries, 14 Wn.2d 481, 128 P.2d 497. The department, in its brief, also refers to and quotes the provisions of class 9, supra, and thereafter states: "Office employees are not excluded under classification 9-1."

  2. Cochran v. Nelson

    173 P.2d 769 (Wash. 1946)   Cited 8 times
    In Cochran v. Nelson, 26 Wn.2d 82 [ 173 P.2d 769], the Supreme Court of Washington held that an auctioneer was not liable to the buyer for an overcharge paid on the purchase of a washing machine.

    [3] It is a rule of general application that in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary, in arriving at the meaning of words used by a legislative body, those words must be given their generally accepted meaning, or, as sometimes stated, words are to be taken as understood in their ordinary and popular sense. Featherstone v. Dessert, 173 Wn. 264, 22 P.2d 1050; Parker v. Department of Labor Industries, 14 Wn.2d 481, 128 P.2d 497. [4] The term "auctioneer" is commonly understood to mean a person who sells or makes a business of selling by auction; on the other hand, a seller is one who disposes of his property to another for a consideration, usually money.