KEY DESIGN, INC. v. Moser, 66916-3.
Decision Date | 14 December 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 66916-3.,66916-3. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | KEY DESIGN, INC., Appellant, v. Vince MOSER, et al., Respondents. |
ORDER CHANGING OPINION
It is hereby ordered that the opinion in the above cause, as the same appears at 138 Wash.2d 875, 983 P.2d 653, be changed as follows:
1. In the second line from the top of page 877, the word "contract" is deleted and the word "agreement" is inserted in its place.
2. In the third line from the top of page 877, [column 2, line 21, page 655 of 983 P.2d] the following is added after the word "rulings":
With respect to the real estate purchase and sale agreement.
The other agreement between the parties, an agreement for the purchase of personal property, was not specifically considered by the trial court because it was not clearly before that court on summary judgment. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of appellant Key Design's claims with respect to the personal property agreement and remand to superior court for a determination of issues with respect to this agreement.
3. The paragraph beginning with the word "Since" in the thirteenth line from the top of page 889 [ ] is deleted, and the following two paragraphs are inserted in its place:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grisby v. Herzog, 71904–1–I.
...show that the prior decision is both incorrect and harmful. See, e.g., Key Design Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wash.2d 875, 882, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999) ("We will not overturn an established rule unless the party challenging it makes a clear showing that the rule is incorrect and harmful.")......
-
Fed. Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Credit Suisse Sec. (Usa) LLC
...Corp. Ltd., 186 Wash.2d 716, 729 n.9, 381 P.3d 32 (2016) ; accord Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875, 880-84, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999). The value of stability in the law in this context is certainly weightier than in some other contexts. For example, erroneous interpretations......
-
Pruitt v. Douglas County
...flow; and (3) failure to exercise due care in preventing unnecessary damage. Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wash.2d 858, 866, 983 P.2d 626, 993 P.2d 900 (1999) (refusing to abandon the common enemy doctrine altogether in favor of the reasonable use rule); Borden, 113 Wash.App. at 367-68, 53 P.3d 102......
-
In re Hinton
...re Det. of Campbell, 139 Wash.2d 341, 348, 986 P.2d 771 (1999) (citing Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wash.2d 875, 882, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999)). Under Andress, the petitioners' judgments and sentences are necessarily invalid on their face; thus, RCW 10.73.090(1)'s procedural time......
-
Table of Cases
...of Spokane, No. 97-2-00544-7 (Wash. Super. Ct., Spokane Cnty Nov. 11, 1997): 17.4 Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wn.2d 858, 983 P.2d 626, amended, 993 P.2d 900 (1999): 11.2(1), 11.2(3), 11.2(3)(b), 11.2(3)(c), 11.2(7) D_____________________________________________________________________ Dahlgren v.......
-
Table of Cases
...Ketner Bros., Inc. v. Nichols, 52 Wn.2d 353, 324 P.2d 1093 (1958): 22.3(1)(b)(iv) Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999): 5.5(5), 9.2(1), 10.5(2), 13.2 Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., 124 Wn.2d 618, 881 P.2d 201 (1994)......
-
§11.2 - Rights and Duties with Regard to Surface Waters
...Ry. Co., 85 Wash. 395, 148 P. 567 (1915)). This definition was affirmed in Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wn.2d 858, 861, 983 P.2d 626, amended, 993 P.2d 900 (1999) (Surface water is vagrant or diffused [water] produced by rain, melting snow, or springs.) (quoting King Cnty., 62 Wn.2d In Grundy v. T......
-
Table of Cases
...Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n, 156 Wn.2d 253, 126 P.3d 16 (2006): 1.2(2) Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875, 983 P.2d 653, amended, 993 P.2d 900 (1999): 8.5(2)(b) Kim v. Lee, 145 Wn.2d 79, 31 P.3d 665, 43 P.3d 1222 (2001): 10.3(2) Kincaid v. City of Seattle, 74 Wash. 617, 134 P. 504 (......