H. O. Meyer Drilling Co. v. Alton v. Phillips Co.
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bremmeyer v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 1976)
- Rhyne v. Bates (Wash. Ct. App. 1983)
- DEP'T OF TRANSPORTATION v. Seib (Wash. 1982)
- Department of Transportation v. State Employees' Insurance Board (Wash. 1982)
- Joint Administrative Board of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Fallon (Wash. 1977)
- Expert Drywall, Inc. v. Brain (Wash. Ct. App. 1977)
- Northwest Cascade Construction, Inc. v. Custom Component Structures, Inc. (Wash. 1974)
- Martinson v. Publishers Forest Products Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)
- Nicolaysen v. Burgess (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)
- Northwest Cascade Construction, Inc. v. Custom Component Structures, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)
- Todisco v. Econopouly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
H.O. MEYER DRILLING CO., INC., Respondent,
v.
ALTON V. PHILLIPS CO., INC., et al., Petitioners.
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester and John N. Sylvester, for petitioners.
Johnson, Jonson & Inslee, James C. Hanken, Carl A. Jonson, and Gerald G. Day, for respondent.
PER CURIAM:
In this cause we granted a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, as reported in 2 Wn.App. 600, 468 P.2d 1008 (1970).
Our decision in Murphy v. Campbell Inv. Co., 79 Wn.2d 417, 486 P.2d 1080 (1971), contemporaneously filed, involves and affirmatively resolves the basic question presented in this action, i.e., whether a contractor's substantial compliance with the registration requirements of RCW 18.27 (the contractors registration act) satisfies the policy of that statute. The essential facts in the instant case, as well as the determination of the Court of Appeals, are in accord with the Murphy case. Disposition of this cause is, therefore, controlled by Murphy.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
STAFFORD, J. (dissenting)
The reasons for my dissent have been set forth at length in Murphy v. Campbell Inv. *432 Co., 79 Wn.2d 417, 486 P.2d 1080 (1971). Nothing will be gained by repeating them in the instant case.
ROSELLINI, J., concurs with STAFFORD, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.