Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)

Citation: Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Parent Document: Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 1990-11-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5106834/atherton-condominium-apartment-... ↗

Full Text

624 chars

In a summary judgment motion, the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact and that, as a matter of law, summary judgment is proper. See Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 774, 698 P.2d 77 (1985). The moving party is held to a strict standard. Any doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact is resolved against the moving party. In addition, we consider all the facts submitted and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. E.g., Citizens for Clean Air v. Spokane, 114 Wn.2d 20, 38, 785 P.2d 447 (1990).

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text