1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wn.2d
  4. 65 Wn.2d
  5. 65 Wn.2d 392 (1964)
 

WATER DISTRICT NO. 111 v. MOORE

No. 37095.

65 Wn.2d 392 (1964)

397 P.2d 845

WATER DISTRICT No. 111 et al., Appellants, v. FRED T. MOORE et al., Respondents, TED STREDICKE et al., Appellants.

The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

December 24, 1964.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Wright, Booth, Beresford & Anderson and Emerson B. Thatcher, for appellants.

Marvin E. Beckman and Cartano, Botzer & Chapman, for respondents.

The Attorney General, Morton M. Tytler and Charles B. Roe, Jr., Assistants (appearing under authority of RCW 7.24.110).

PER CURIAM:

[1] As in Minish v. Hanson (1964), 64 Wn.2d 113, 390 P.2d 704, the issue sought to be raised is whether the dissolution procedures for water districts, as authorized by RCW 57.04.100, impair the obligations of the contracts made by the water district being dissolved. There has been a petition for the dissolution of the plaintiff-appellant water district filed, but...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases