Phil Schroeder, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance

683 P.2d 186, 101 Wash. 2d 830, 1984 Wash. LEXIS 1933
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJune 22, 1984
Docket48699-9
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 683 P.2d 186 (Phil Schroeder, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance) 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
Phil Schroeder, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance, 683 P.2d 186, 101 Wash. 2d 830, 1984 Wash. LEXIS 1933 (Wash. 1984).

Opinion

Williams, C.J.

An opinion in this case was filed on February 24, 1983. Phil Schroeder, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 99 Wn.2d 65, 659 P.2d 509 (1983). The published report of the decision includes this concluding notation: "Review granted by Supreme Court May 31, 1983." 99 Wn.2d at 75. This notation is in error. In fact, what was granted on May 31, 1983, was respondent's motion for reconsideration. That motion for reconsideration was addressed only to that portion of the court's original opinion (part III) relating to respondent's attorney fees in the trial and appellate courts.

After the motion for reconsideration was granted, but before reargument, the parties settled their dispute over attorney fees and filed a stipulation requesting that the appeal be dismissed. At that time a previously scheduled reargument was stricken and the court requested the views *831 of counsel for the parties and amici curiae on the proper disposition of the appeal in light of the settlement.

The court has determined that the prior decision should be modified to delete therefrom part III of the decision, commencing on page 72 of 99 Wn.2d and including pages 73 and 74 in their entirety. In the place of part III is substituted the following:

The decision of the trial court is affirmed, except as to the award of attorney fees. The parties having settled the attorney fee dispute, that issue is moot and the court expresses no opinion on it.

The request by amici curiae that this court hear reargument on the attorney fee issue despite its mootness is denied.

We hereby reaffirm parts I and II of our prior opinion, 99 Wn.2d at 65-72. Therefore, in order to avoid disturbing the precedential value of parts I and II of the prior opinion, the parties' stipulation for dismissal of the appeal is denied. The clerk shall immediately mandate the case to the Superior Court, however, and on receipt of that mandate the Superior Court is directed to dismiss the complaint pursuant to the parties' settlement stipulation.

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

Related

American States Insurance v. Delean's Tile
319 P.3d 38 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2013)
American Best Food, Inc. v. Alea London, Ltd.
168 Wash. 2d 398 (Washington Supreme Court, 2010)
American Best Food v. Alea London
229 P.3d 693 (Washington Supreme Court, 2010)
Quadrant Corp. v. American States Insurance
154 Wash. 2d 165 (Washington Supreme Court, 2005)
Quadrant Corp. v. American States Ins. Co.
110 P.3d 733 (Washington Supreme Court, 2005)
Kaplan v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
65 P.3d 16 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2003)
Ross v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
132 Wash. 2d 507 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Ross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
940 P.2d 252 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Leingang v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc.
131 Wash. 2d 133 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.
930 P.2d 288 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Ross v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
919 P.2d 1268 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1996)
Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Central Nat'l Ins. Co. of Omaha
882 P.2d 703 (Washington Supreme Court, 1995)
Cashmere Pioneer Growers, Inc. v. Unigard Security Insurance
891 P.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1995)
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Henault
879 P.2d 994 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1994)
McGreevy v. OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE
876 P.2d 463 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1994)
Teague Motor Co. v. Federated Service Insurance
869 P.2d 1130 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1994)
Munn v. MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW INSURANCE
869 P.2d 99 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1994)
Denny's Restaurants, Inc. v. Security Union Title Insurance
859 P.2d 619 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1993)
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. M&S Industries, Inc.
827 P.2d 321 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
683 P.2d 186, 101 Wash. 2d 830, 1984 Wash. LEXIS 1933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phil-schroeder-inc-v-royal-globe-insurance-wash-1984.