Court of Appeals of Washington· 12/5/2002
Hanson Industries, Inc. v. Spokane County
Citations
- 114 Wash. App. 523
- 58 P.3d 910
- 2002 Wash. App. LEXIS 2982
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that right-of-way deed conveying strip of land over and across grantor’s lands conveyed easement
- holding that contract ambiguity should be construed against the successor- in-interest to the drafter
- holding that deeds that “convey strips of land for the purpose of a railroad ‘over and across’ the grantors’ lands” conveyed an easement that terminated when Burlington Northern abandoned its line
- recognizing that ambiguities must be construed against railroad because it drafted deed
- “Washington decisions have consistently interpreted deeds granting a strip of land for a railroad right-of-way as conveying an easement, even in the face of traditional factors signifying a fee.”
- “A railroad right-of-way is a very substantial thing. More than a mere right of passage and more than an ordinary easement”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sweeney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Newport Yacht Basin v. Supreme NorthwestCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2012-05-07· cited 63×
- Newport Yacht Basin Ass'n of Condominium Owners v. Supreme Northwest, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington· 2012-05-07· cited 59×
- Ray v. King CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2004-03-15· cited 22×
- Haggart v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2012-12-18· cited 21×
- Beres v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2012-04-05· cited 14×
- Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2004-05-25· cited 6×
- Beres v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2010-04-12· cited 6×
- Beres v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2011-04-07· cited 6×
- Schroeder v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2005-06-23· cited 5×
- Peters v. Amazon Services LLCW.D. Washington· 2013-11-05· cited 4×
- Swaby v. Northern Hills Regional Railroad AuthoritySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2009-07-08· cited 2×
- Swaby v. NORTHERN HILLS REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTH.South Dakota Supreme Court· 2009-07-08
- Hanson Industries, Inc. v. COUNTY OF SPOKAGECourt of Appeals of Washington· 2002-12-05
- Blendu v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2007-11-30
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lawson v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1986-12-24· cited 100×
- Abercrombie v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1905-06-10· cited 82×
- Harris v. Ski Park Farms, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1993-02-11· cited 75×
- Veach v. CulpWashington Supreme Court· 1979-09-06· cited 75×
- Brown v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1996-10-17· cited 56×
- Ross, Inc. v. LeglerIndiana Supreme Court· 1964-06-12· cited 53×
- Roeder Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1986-03-27· cited 51×
- Schnabel v. County of Du PageAppellate Court of Illinois· 1981-11-12· cited 49×
- Zobrist v. CulpWashington Supreme Court· 1981-05-07· cited 45×
- Swan v. O'LEARYWashington Supreme Court· 1950-12-07· cited 45×
- Guy Stickney, Inc. v. UnderwoodWashington Supreme Court· 1966-01-20· cited 42×
- Rouse v. Glascam Builders, Inc.Washington Supreme Court· 1984-05-11· cited 42×
- King County v. RasmussenNinth Circuit· 2002-08-09· cited 41×
- King County v. Squire Investment Co.Court of Appeals of Washington· 1991-01-18· cited 40×
- Neitzel v. Spokane International Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1911-09-14· cited 31×
- Roeder Co. v. K & E Moving & Storage Co.Court of Appeals of Washington· 2000-05-30· cited 19×
- Scott v. WallitnerWashington Supreme Court· 1956-06-21· cited 18×
- Zobrist v. CulpCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1977-10-12· cited 15×
- Tacoma Mill Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1916-01-11· cited 15×
- Neal v. GreenWashington Supreme Court· 1967-04-06· cited 11×
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.