Philipp v. Kueckelhan

Washington Supreme Court

Philipp v. Kueckelhan

400 P.2d 769, 66 Wash. 2d 922, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 948

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1965

DocketNo. 37340

StatusPublished

This text of 400 P.2d 769 (Philipp v. Kueckelhan) 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

Philipp v. Kueckelhan, 400 P.2d 769, 66 Wash. 2d 922, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 948 (Wash. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant, appearing pro se, brought this action in what he designates as a “Petition for Review of Commissioner’s Order Refusing Hearing,” apparently to review the refusal by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Washington to conduct a hearing into a surety bond required of certain officers and employees of a state chartered credit union.

The trial court, on motion, dismissed the action, seemingly for the reason that it could find no allegation or claim stated therein upon which relief in law could be granted. Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 12(b), RCW vol. 0; 3 Orland, Wash. Prac. 305.

Mr. Philipp appeals the order of dismissal. We have studied the transcript and the briefs, and have heard appellant’s oral argument. The record contains no statement of facts, and we are unable to discern anywhere any claim or complaint on which relief can be granted. Finding no error in the order of dismissal, the same is affirmed.

June 4, 1965. Petition for rehearing denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant, appearing pro se, brought this action in what he designates as a “Petition for Review of Commissioner’s Order Refusing Hearing,” apparently to review the refusal by the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Washington to conduct a hearing into a surety bond required of certain officers and employees of a state chartered credit union.

The trial court, on motion, dismissed the action, seemingly for the reason that it could find no allegation or claim stated therein upon which relief in law could be granted. Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 12(b), RCW vol. 0; 3 Orland, Wash. Prac. 305.

Mr. Philipp appeals the order of dismissal. We have studied the transcript and the briefs, and have heard appellant’s oral argument. The record contains no statement of facts, and we are unable to discern anywhere any claim or complaint on which relief can be granted. Finding no error in the order of dismissal, the same is affirmed.

June 4, 1965. Petition for rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 P.2d 769, 66 Wash. 2d 922, 1965 Wash. LEXIS 948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philipp-v-kueckelhan-wash-1965.