Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)

Citation: Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)
Parent Document: Tucker v. Hayford, 118 Wash. App. 246 (2003)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2003-09-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4935965/tucker-v-hayford/ ↗

Full Text

869 chars

This is an appeal from summary judgment. So we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Mountain Park Homeowners Ass’n v. Tydings, 125 Wn.2d 337, 341, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,. . . [and] affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” CR 56(c). “A material fact is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends.” Clements v. Travelers Indem. Co., 121 Wn.2d 243, 249, 850 P.2d 1298 (1993). And we consider the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Mountain Park, 125 Wn.2d at 341. The burden is on the moving party to prove no genuine issue of material fact exists. Jacobsen v. State, 89 Wn.2d 104, 108, 569 P.2d 1152 (1977). Contract Claims

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text