Washington Supreme Court· 3/4/1903

Coyle v. Seattle Electric Co.

Citations

31 Wash. 181
71 P. 733
1903 Wash. LEXIS 602

Syllabus

<p>NEW TRIAL-ORDER GRANTING CANNOT BE VACATED.</p> <p>Where a court has granted a motion for a new trial, it cannot subsequently, under the belief that it committed error in so ruling, set aside such order and deny the motion. (Fullerton, C. X, dissents).</p>

Judges: Fullerton, Hadley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Jones v. Babcock
Washington Supreme Court· 1921-07-28· cited 31×
Luke v. Coleman
Utah Supreme Court· 1911-01-23· cited 17×
State ex rel. Lundin v. Superior Court for King County
Washington Supreme Court· 1916-03-15· cited 16×
N. E. Redlon Co. v. Franklin Square Corp.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire· 1941-12-02· cited 15×
State ex rel. Jensen v. Bell
Washington Supreme Court· 1904-02-29· cited 14×
Pierce County v. Bunch
Washington Supreme Court· 1908-06-15· cited 14×
Marie's Blue Cheese Dressing, Inc. v. Andre's Better Foods, Inc.
Washington Supreme Court· 1966-06-09· cited 13×
Dubs ex rel. Dubs v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court· 1921-01-20· cited 13×
Sound Investment Co. v. Fairhaven Land Co.
Washington Supreme Court· 1907-01-05· cited 12×
Corcoran v. Carrau
Washington Supreme Court· 1905-09-19· cited 11×
In re the Estate of Hamilton
Washington Supreme Court· 1919-09-17· cited 4×
Clark v. Ellington
Washington Supreme Court· 1915-06-21· cited 3×
Barker v. Huey
Washington Supreme Court· 1903-09-28

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Burnham v. Spokane Mercantile Co.
Washington Supreme Court· 1897-12-06· cited 24×
Clein v. Wandschneider
Washington Supreme Court· 1896-03-12· cited 6×

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.