Skip to main content
· 7/14/1977

Smick v. Pierson

Citations

  • 18 Wash. App. 75
  • 566 P.2d 580
  • 1977 Wash. App. LEXIS 1969

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[A] court may not extend that time period or allow an appeal nunc pro tunc absent a showing that extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, or its equivalent, duress, or coercion caused the delay in filing an appeal.”
  • “[A] court may not extend that time period or allow an appeal nunc pro tunc absent a showing that extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, or its equivalent, duress, or coercion caused the delay in filing an appeal.”
  • “[A] court may not extend that time period or allow an appeal nunc pro tunc absent a showing that extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, or its equivalent, duress, or coercion caused the delay in filing an appeal.”
  • ‘[A] court may not extend that time period or allow an appeal nunc pro tunc absent a showing that extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, or its equivalent, duress, or coercion caused the delay in filing an appeal.’
  • ‘[A] court may not extend that time period or allow an appeal nunc pro tunc absent a showing that extraordinary circumstances involving fraud, or its equivalent, duress, or coercion caused the delay in filing an appeal.’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Green, McInturff, Munson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.