Beagle v. Beagle

349 P.2d 241, 55 Wash. 2d 908, 1960 Wash. LEXIS 590
Washington Supreme Court·Decided February 4, 1960·No. 35194·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent moves to strike the statement of facts from the record on appeal for the reason that it was not timely filed, in accordance with Rule on Appeal 34, RCW, Vol. 0. The proposed statement of facts was filed more than ninety days after entry of the decree. No application for extension of time for filing was filed within the ninety-day period, or at all. See Beagle v. Beagle, ante p. 174, 346 P. (2d) 689 (1959).

In the exercise of our discretion (since the timely filing of a statement of facts is no longer jurisdictional), we deny the motion to strike the statement of facts; but, pursuant to Rule on Appeal 7, RCW, Vol. 0, we impose upon appellant’s counsel, for failure to observe the Rules on Appeal, terms of one hundred dollars to be paid to respondent’s counsel as attorney’s fees.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beagle v. Beagle, 349 P.2d 241, 55 Wash. 2d 908, 1960 Wash. LEXIS 590 (Wash. 1960).

349 P.2d 241 (Beagle v. Beagle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ashbaugh
583 P.2d 1206 (Washington Supreme Court, 1978)
State v. O'CONNELL
523 P.2d 872 (Washington Supreme Court, 1974)
Kuhnhausen v. England
484 P.2d 1135 (Washington Supreme Court, 1971)
Ewer v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
463 P.2d 183 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1969)
Neal v. Green
413 P.2d 339 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)