Rumbolz v. Public Utility District No. 1

22 Wash. 2d 953, 1945 Wash. LEXIS 416
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rumbolz v. Public Utility District No. 1. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Wash. 2d 724
Washington Supreme Court·Decided April 16, 1945·No. No. 29577.·Published

Opinions

Order Denying Motion

The above-entitled action having come on regularly to be heard this day before the court sitting En Banc upon appellants’ motion for an order striking certain specified portions of the opinion heretofore filed herein, for an order reinstating the temporary injunction pendente lite referred to in the opinion, for an order withholding the remittitur in the above-entitled cause until further order of the court, and for an order granting to appellants leave to file herein a petition for rehearing; and the parties having appeared by their respective counsel and having filed their briefs, and the matter having been regularly argued and submitted to the court; and the court being fully advised:

It Is Ordered that appellants’ motion be and the same is hereby denied.

Dated at Olympia this 16th day of April, 1945.

By the Court:

Walter B. Beals,

Chief Justice.

Steinert and Simpson, JJ., dissent.

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

Rumbolz v. Public Utility District No. 1, 22 Wash. 2d 953, 1945 Wash. LEXIS 416 (Wash. 1945).

22 Wash. 2d 953 (Rumbolz v. Public Utility District No. 1) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kosten v. Fleming
136 P.2d 449 (Washington Supreme Court, 1943)
In Re the Guardianship of Brown
107 P.2d 1104 (Washington Supreme Court, 1940)
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Henneford
92 P.2d 214 (Washington Supreme Court, 1939)