Norton v. McIntosh

How courts have described this case

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

• benefit received on appeal by a respondent who did not cross-appeal was \the unavoidable result of the interdependent and intermingled nature\ of the parties' claims to the same $1,000 payment
• benefit received on appeal by a respondent who did not cross-appeal was “the unavoidable result of the interdependent and intermingled nature” of the parties’ claims to the same $1,000 payment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Cornejo v. State
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1990-04-02· cited 20×
• Genie Industries v. Market Transport
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2007-05-21· cited 8×
• Genie Industries, Inc. v. Market Transport, Ltd.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2007-05-21· cited 8×
• Grandy v. Luther
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1975-01-10

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Grant County Constructors v. E. v. Lane Corp.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1969-10-16· cited 42×
• Leland v. Frogge
  Washington Supreme Court· 1967-05-11· cited 32×
• Bianchi Bros. v. Gendron
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1935-11-25· cited 26×
• Meyer v. Strom
  Washington Supreme Court· 1951-01-12· cited 23×
• Lovell v. Commonwealth Thread Co.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1930-07-01· cited 19×