Somerset Village v. Far Northwest Dev.

206 P.3d 655, 165 Wash. 2d 1050
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedApril 29, 2009
Docket82457-6
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 206 P.3d 655 (Somerset Village v. Far Northwest Dev.) 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
Somerset Village v. Far Northwest Dev., 206 P.3d 655, 165 Wash. 2d 1050 (Wash. 2009).

Opinion

206 P.3d 655 (2009)

SOMERSET VILLAGE TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUM OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Petitioner,
v.
FAR NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; Faramarz Ghoddoussi, an individual; and Does 1 through 20, Defendants.
Far Northwest Development Company, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
Allied Construction Inc., a Washington corporation; Dom Construction Inc., a Washington corporation, Respondent,
EDCA Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendant;
Hills Construction, a Washington corporation, Respondent,
Maruice W. Hole and Jane Doe Hole, d/b/a Quality Surfacing, a Washington sole proprietorship; B & R Development, Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendants,
Orlin Johnson and Jane Doe Johnson, d/b/a Star Services, a Washington sole proprietorship, and Washington Insulation Inc., a Washington corporation, Respondents.
Dom Construction, Inc., a Washington corporation, Respondent,
v.
Orest L. Lakotiy and Jane Doe Lakotiy, d/b/a Lakotiy Construction, a Washington sole proprietorship, Defendant.

No. 82457-6.

Supreme Court of Washington.

April 29, 2009.

ORDER

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Alexander and Justices Madsen, *656 Chambers, Fairhurst and Stephens, at its April 28, 2009, Motion Calendar, considered whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b), and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the Petition for Review is denied. Review of the issues raised in answer to the petition for review is also denied. For the Court

/s/ Gerry L. Alexander CHIEF JUSTICE

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

Related

BRAVO FARMS, LLC v. Battin
206 P.3d 655 (Washington Supreme Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 P.3d 655, 165 Wash. 2d 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somerset-village-v-far-northwest-dev-wash-2009.