History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dishman v. Whitney
124 Wash. 697
Wash.
1923
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

— After the Department opinion in this case was filed, 121 Wash. 157, 209 Pac. 12, a petition for rehearing was presented and granted. Before the time fixed for the rehearing En Banc arrived, the parties- entered into a stipulation reciting that the judgment “has been fully settled and satisfied, and that the appeal may be dismissed without costs to either party.” Notwithstanding the fact that the case, after the petition for rehearing had been granted, did not come on for hearing En Banc, it should be noted that, in the Department opinion, a reference is made to the holding in the case of Buckley v. Harkens, 114 Wash. 468, 195 Pac. 250, which is not entirely accurate. By filing this brief memorandum it is not the intention either to approve or disapprove the Department opinion, except' in so far as that opinion was not accurate in its discussion of the case mentioned.

Case Details

Case Name: Dishman v. Whitney
Court Name: Washington Supreme Court
Date Published: May 3, 1923
Citation: 124 Wash. 697
Docket Number: No. 16793
Court Abbreviation: Wash.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.