Brown v. Child, 135--41313--III
| Decision Date | 02 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 135--41313--III,135--41313--III |
| Citation | 3 Wn.App. 342,474 P.2d 908 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Errol BROWN and Mary Brown, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Arvil CHILD and Jane Doe Child, his wife, Robert Gilchirst and Jane Doe Gilchirst, husband and wife, Roy Hull and Jane Doe Hull, husband and wife, and John Baird and Jane Doe Baird, husband and wife, Respondents. |
John R. Lewis, Moses Lake, for appellants.
Darrell E. Ries, of Ries & Kenison, Moses Lake, for respondents.
Plaintiffs, Errol and Mary Brown, appeal from a summary judgment of dismissal in their action for damages which alleges defendants conspired by unlawful means to oust Errol Brown from control of Brown & Kelly, Inc., a potato processing concern.
In order to avoid defendants' motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs' theory of the case required, among other things, a showing that there existed an issue of fact pertaining to the unlawfulness of defendants' actions--more specifically, the unlawfulness of defendants' actions in (1) securing a stock option from the estate of Percy Kelly in violation of the Securities Act of Washington, and (2) securing stock options from individual stockholders of the corporation by misrepresenting the company's financial condition.
In answer to defendants' motion, plaintiffs merely reiterated defendants' supposed violation of the Securities Act of Washington without any supporting facts. Such an unsupported conclusional statement cannot be considered by a court in a motion for summary judgment. Peninsula Truck Lines, Inc. v. Tooker, 63 Wash.2d 724, 388 P.2d 958 (1964); Henry v. St. Regis Paper Co., 55 Wash.2d 148, 346 P.2d 692 (1959).
With regard to the second unlawful means alleged, the financial statement upon which the directors base their opinion that the corporation was in an unsatisfactory financial condition was the one Errol Brown, as president, prepared for the board of directors and which the allegedly deceived stockholders had the right by statute to receive should they desire to inquire concerning the corporation's financial codition. Furthermore, plaintiffs have cited no specific statements upon which they base their allegation of misrepresentation. Our examination of over 500 pages of testimony by deposition has not brought any such statements to our attention.
A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if there is no genuine issue of fact as to any material element necessary to support a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chase v. Daily Record, Inc.
...to avoid a summary judgment. The court rejected such a method of avoiding summary judgment in the decision of Brown v. Child, 3 Wash.App. 342, 474 P.2d 908 (1970), in pertinent In answer to defendants' motion, plaintiffs merely reiterated defendants' supposed violation of the Securities Act......
-
Hash by Hash v. Children's Orthopedic Hosp.
...conclusional statements alone are insufficient to prove the existence or nonexistence of issues of fact. Brown v. Child, 3 Wash.App. 342, 343, 474 P.2d 908 (1970); Mansfield v. Holcomb, 5 Wash.App. 881, 491 P.2d 672 It is conceded that Hash sustained a fracture of her left femur during the ......
-
Carr v. Deking
...by a court in a motion for summary judgment." Mansfield v. Holcomb, 5 Wash.App. 881, 886, 491 P.2d 672 (1971); Brown v. Child, 3 Wash.App. 342, 343, 474 P.2d 908 (1970). See also Hash v. Children's Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 49 Wash.App. 130, 133, 741 P.2d 584 (1987), aff'd, 110 Wash.2d ......
-
Blum v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hosp. at Pasco
...Unsupported conclusional statements alone are insufficient to prove the existence or nonexistence of issues of fact. Brown v. Child, 3 Wn. App. 342, 343, 474 P.2d 908 (1970). Dr. Palmer's affidavit does not meet the requirements of CR 56(e). He offers no explanation of how he arrived at his......