Boes v. Bisiar

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• That 11 defendant left the state for the final 10 days before the statute of limitations ran, “together with 12 his knowledge that the statute was running out, supports the required inference of intent to avoid 13 service.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Rodriguez v. James-Jackson
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2005-04-25· cited 29×
• Elizabeth Cito v. Jennifer K. Rios And John Doe Rios
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2018-05-29· cited 4×

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Skimming v. Boxer
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2004-01-15· cited 79×
• Jones v. Stebbins
  Washington Supreme Court· 1993-09-30· cited 56×
• Dobbins v. Mendoza
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1997-10-16· cited 46×
• Dobbins v. Mendoza
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1997-12-04· cited 45×
• First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ekanger
  Washington Supreme Court· 1980-06-26· cited 35×
• Cotton v. Kronenberg
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2002-04-22· cited 34×
• Brenner v. Port of Bellingham
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1989-01-09· cited 31×
• Parkash v. Perry
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1985-06-17· cited 20×
• Charboneau Excavating, Inc. v. Turnipseed
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2003-10-07· cited 17×
• Charboneau Excavating, Inc. v. Turnipseed
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2003-09-09· cited 17×
• Bruff v. Main
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1997-07-07· cited 17×
• Longview Fibre Co. v. Stokes
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1988-08-17· cited 16×
• Jesseph v. Carroll
  Washington Supreme Court· 1923-10-11· cited 16×
• Brennan v. Hurt
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1990-09-17· cited 13×
• Carras v. Johnson
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1995-06-21· cited 10×