Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)

Citation: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Parent Document: Martini v. Post, 178 Wash. App. 153 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2013-11-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4954189/martini-v-post/ ↗

Full Text

668 chars

¶13 Post filed a motion to strike the new evidence, arguing that (1) it is improper to introduce new evidence on *160reconsideration under CR 59(a)(7)-(9); (2) Dr. Kiesel was not qualified to testify regarding whether someone could survive in a burning house; and in the alternative, (3) Dr. Kiesel’s opinion was based on speculation. Post also responded to Martini’s motion for reconsideration, arguing that (1) the newly introduced evidence should not be considered, (2) the marks on the window in the northeast bedroom do not create a question of fact with regard to causation, and (3) Dr. Kiesel’s declaration does not support Martini’s motion for reconsideration.

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text