Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (2001)

Citation
Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (2001)
Parent Document
Lian v. Stalick, 25 P.3d 467 (2001)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
2001-06-19

Other Sections in This Document (107)

Full Text

777 chars
The evolution of this rule, like many common law rules, has been bumpy. It started out as a clear statement that the court need not make negative findings. And where such findings were absent, and the evidence controverted, the presumption was that the court found against the party having the burden of proof. Maynard v. England, 13 Wash.App. 961, 968, 538 P.2d 551 (1975) (citing Schmitt v. Matthews, 12 Wash.App. 654, 659, 531 P.2d 309 (1975)); Eggert v. Vincent, 44 Wash.App. 851, 856, 723 P.2d 527 (1986); Fettig v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 49 Wash.App. 466, 478, 744 P.2d 349 (1987). And while there are good policy reasons why the absence of a finding should be construed as a negative finding, not the least of which is finality, there are also practical reasons: