West v. Keith

5 Citing cases

  1. Branchick v. Melrose Station Homeowner's Ass'n

    No. 56999-0-II (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2023)

    Id. Branchick's reliance on West v. Keith, 154 Wash. 682, 283 P. 198 (1929), is also misplaced

  2. Cogswell v. Cogswell

    50 Wn. 2d 597 (Wash. 1957)   Cited 11 times

    We need not decide the merits of his contention on this appeal, since such an objection, if not taken by demurrer or answer, is waived. RCW 4.32.190; West v. Keith, 154 Wn. 682, 283 P. 198; Lamb v. Connor, 84 Wn. 121, 146 P. 174; Harris v. Johnson, 75 Wn. 291, 134 P. 1048; Bittrick v. Consolidated Imp. Co., 51 Wn. 469, 99 P. 303; Budlong v. Budlong, 48 Wn. 645, 94 P. 478. The question is not, as the defendant contends, jurisdictional.

  3. Hubbell v. Ernst

    87 P.2d 985 (Wash. 1939)   Cited 8 times
    In Hubbell v. Ernst, 198 Wn. 176, 87 P.2d 985, we held that arguments in the brief cannot be considered where there is no assignment of error in accordance with rule of this court.

    The record before us does not show that either the demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings was presented to the trial court, and so far as we are advised the court did not pass upon either of the propositions of which appellant complains. [1] Appellant cannot urge error in respect to the rulings of the trial court upon a demurrer and motion unless the record discloses their submission to the trial court and the rulings of the trial court upon them. Budlong v. Budlong, 48 Wn. 645, 94 P. 478; Duskey v. Green Lake Shingle Co., 51 Wn. 145, 98 P. 99; Apker v. Hoquiam, 51 Wn. 567, 99 P. 746; West v. Keith, 154 Wn. 682, 283 P. 198. [2] Appellant has presented arguments in his brief concerning the judgment entered by the trial court, but because of the absence of any further assignment of error, in accordance with Rule XXI of this court, 193 Wn. 28-a, such matters cannot be considered. Mohney v. Davis, 104 Wn. 209, 176 P. 31; Blouen v. Quimpere Canning Co., 139 Wn. 436, 247 P. 940; State ex rel. Linden v. Bunge, 192 Wn. 245, 73 P.2d 516.

  4. Niemela v. State Forest Board

    163 Wn. App. 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011)

    On numerous occasions, this court has held that the abutting property owner is entitled to just compensation if this right is taken or damaged. Walker v. State, 48 Wn.2d 587, 589-90, 295 P.2d 328 (1956); see also London v. City of Seattle, 93 Wn.2d 657, 660-61, 611 P.2d 781 (1980); Keiffer v. King County, 89 Wn.2d 369, 372, 572 P.2d 408 (1977); McMoran v. State, 55 Wn.2d 37, 40, 345 P.2d 598 (1959); West v. Keith, 154 Wash. 682, 692, 283 P. 198 (1929); Fry v. O'Leary, 141 Wash. 465, 469-70, 252 P. 111 (1927). Vacation of a public street can result in a compensable loss of access for abutting property owners even though the road is not physically blocked.

  5. McKinney v. Ostrovsky

    126 Wn. App. 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)

    The cases discussing whether a particular 'obstruction' constitutes a nuisance have focused on the permanent nature of the 'obstructions' at issue. See, e.g., Grant, 156 Wash. 96 (permanent stalls erected at Pike Place, a public street, constituted public nuisance under statutes similar to RCW 7.48.120 and RCW 7.48.140(4)); West v. Keith, 154 Wash. 682, 684-85, 693, 283 P. 198 (1929) (permanent structures erected on public highway constituted public nuisance); State v. Camp Lewis Serv. Garage Co., 129 Wash. 166, 169-70, 224 P. 584 (1924) (gasoline pump and tanks encroaching upon highway constituted public nuisance). It is true that in at least one case the Supreme Court did not describe the types of 'obstructions' constituting a public nuisance, but the court did not go so far as to say that any type of obstruction of traffic, no matter how transitory or impermanent, constitutes a public nuisance.