LLOYD ENTERPRISES v. LONGVIEW PLUMBING

No. 39666-8-I.

958 P.2d 1035 (1998)

LLOYD ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. LONGVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING CO., INC., a Washington corporation; Federal Way School District No. 210, Respondents, and Wade M. Berry, Inc., d/b/a The Berry Partnership, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellants. LONGVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING CO., INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. Wade M. BERRY and Jane Doe Berry, The Berry Partnership, and John Does 1 Through 10, Appellants. SMITH TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT CO., a Washington corporation, Plaintiff, v. WADE M. BERRY, INC., d/b/a The Berry Partnership, Inc., a Washington corporation; Wade M. Berry and Jane Doe Berry, husband and wife, and their marital community; Appellants, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; Defendant, Federal Way School District No. 210, a municipal corporation; LP & H Construction Company, a Washington corporation, Respondents. WADE M. BERRY, INC., d/b/a The Berry Partnership, Inc., a Washington corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, a municipality; American Insurance Company, Third Party Defendants. LLOYD ENTERPRISES, INC., a Washington corporation, Plaintiff, v. GARDINIER LANDSCAPE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Washington corporation; Longview Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc., a Washington corporation; Firemen's Fund Insurance Companies d/b/a The American Insurance Co., Bond No. 1111 9263728, Defendants.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

July 20, 1998.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Wade Berry, Sumner, for Appellants.

Richard Skalbania, Michael Zoretic, Stanislaw & Ashbaugh LLP, Bradley Powell, Mark Walters, Oles, Morrison, Rinker & Baker LLP, Seattle, Darrel Blair Addington, Vandeberg, Johnson & Gandara, Tacoma, for Respondents.


GROSSE, Judge.

A trial court is vested with discretion to continue a proceeding pending against a corporation that is party to a merger as if the merger did not occur. Because the rules permitting pro se representation do not apply to corporations, a corporation subject to such a ruling must continue to be represented by an attorney even if the result of the merger leaves a partnership as the surviving entity. The trial court, therefore, did not err in entering a...

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