Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Citation
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Parent Document
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-11-18
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4950936/hawkins-v-diel/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Full Text
308 chars¶27 The Hawkinses argue that DMC owed them common law duties to maintain a habitable premises, that it breached those duties by failing to fix a hole in their apartment wall, and that the breach caused them to suffer severe emotional distress. We hold that their reaction was unreasonable as a matter of law.