Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 52559-5
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Citation | 750 P.2d 254,109 Wn.2d 107 |
| Decision Date | 17 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 52559-5,52559-5 |
| Parties | Fredric HABERMAN, et al, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, et al, Respondents. |
It is hereby ordered that the opinion in the above cause, as the same appears at 109 Wash.2d 107, 744 P.2d 1032, be changed as follows:
1. In the sixth line from the bottom of page 116, [2nd column, 10th line from the top of page 1044 of 744 P.2d], the words "and accountants" are deleted.
2. In the twenty-first line from the top of page 117, [2nd column, 7th line from bottom of page 1044 of 744 P.2d], the date "May 17, 1981," is deleted and the date "March 17, 1981," is inserted in its place.
3. In the last line of page 117, [first column, 17 lines from top of page 1045 of 744 P.2d], the words "all Washington" are deleted and the following words are inserted in their place: "the Washington municipal and public utility district".
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seattle v. The Pollution Control Hearings Board, No. 73419-4 (WA 5/14/2004), 73419-4
...that directly impacts a case pending in Washington courts. Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107, 143-44, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254 (1987). In Haberman, this court evaluated a retroactive amendment adding a scienter requirement to the civil liability provisions of the re......
-
Stevens Cnty. v. Stevens Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
...to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CR 12(b)(6). Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System , 109 Wn.2d 107, 120, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254 (1987). The court must view the truth of facts alleged in the complaint and the hypothetical facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving......
-
Mason v. Mason
..., 182 Wash.2d 500, 505, 341 P.3d 995 (2015) (quoting Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. , 109 Wash.2d 107, 121, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254 (1987)). Otherwise, if a superior court considers and does not exclude matters outside the pleadings, the CR 12(b)(6) motion must be treated as a......
-
Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., S017199
...Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & Holland (1988) 322 N.C. 200, 367 S.E.2d 609, 617 (same); Haberman v. Pub. Power Supply Sys. (1987) 109 Wash.2d 107, 744 P.2d 1032, 1067-1068, modified (1988) 750 P.2d 254 (adopting Restatement rule and rejecting expansive rule of liability "[i]n ......