Court of Appeals of Washington· 12/3/2007

Thompson v. Hanson

Citations

174 P.3d 120

How courts have described this case

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

“Because an explicit purpose of the UFTA is uniformity among the States that have adopted it, the interpretation of other courts also provides guidance.”
“Because an explicit purpose of the UFTA is uniformity among the States that have adopted it, the interpretation of other courts also provides guidance”
explicit purpose of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act is uniformity; the interpretation of the other courts provide guidance
“Because an explicit purpose of the UFTA is uniformity among the States that have adopted it, the interpretation of other courts also provides guidance.”
“An appellate court defers to the trier of fact for purposes of resolving conflicting testimony.”
“An appellate court defers to the trier of fact for purposes of resolving 9 No. 82988-2-I/10 conflicting testimony and evaluating the persuasiveness of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Schindler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.