Govett v. First Pacific Investment Co.

413 P.2d 972, 68 Wash. 2d 973, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 835
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMay 5, 1966
DocketNo. 38245
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 413 P.2d 972 (Govett v. First Pacific Investment Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Govett v. First Pacific Investment Co., 413 P.2d 972, 68 Wash. 2d 973, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 835 (Wash. 1966).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As in Ormiston v. Boast, ante p. 548, 413 P.2d 969 (1966), the instant appeal

is primarily factual, and the substance of it is that the plaintiff disagrees with the findings of the trial court. As explained in Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959), and many times since, we do not retry factual issues, and our examination of the record where a finding of fact is challenged, goes no further than to determine whether there is substantial evidence to sustain that finding. Christensen v. Columbia Acceptance Corp., 66 Wn.2d 347, 402 P.2d 497 (1965).; Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Pacific Indem. Co., 66 Wn.2d 38, 401 P.2d 205 (1965); Harris v. Rivard, 64 Wn.2d 173, 390 P.2d 1004. If there is substantial evidence to support a finding, it becomes a verity so far as we are concerned.

We have examined the record and found substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings. We therefore affirm the judgment.

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

Related

Humphrey Industries, Ltd. v. Clay Street Associates, LLC
295 P.3d 231 (Washington Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 P.2d 972, 68 Wash. 2d 973, 1966 Wash. LEXIS 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/govett-v-first-pacific-investment-co-wash-1966.