Smith Goodfriend, Civil Appeals, SeattleSmith Goodfriend, Civil Appeals, Seattle
≡
  • Our Practice
  • Our Attorneys
    • Catherine Wright Smith (shareholder)
    • Howard M. Goodfriend (shareholder)
    • Valerie A. Villacin (shareholder)
    • Ian C. Cairns (shareholder)
    • Jonathan Collins (shareholder)
    • Nicholas Bartels (associate)
    • Malcolm L. Edwards (1932-2019)
  • Published Decisions
    • ALL
    • By Case Type
      • Amicus
      • Civil & Appellate Procedure
      • Commercial
      • Constitutional
      • Domestic
      • Governmental Liability
      • Health Care
      • Insurance
      • Labor & Employment
      • Personal Injury
      • Professional Discipline
      • Probate & Trust
      • Real Property
      • Taxation
    • By Attorney
      • Catherine Wright Smith
      • Howard M. Goodfriend
      • Valerie A. Villacin
      • Ian C. Cairns
  • "Always Appealing"
  • Articles
    • Why New Counsel on Appeal?
    • Practical Aspects of the Appellate Process: Counseling the Parties on Whether to Appeal
    • The Accidental Advocate: Tips for the Reluctant Rhetorician
    • Attorney's Fees on Appeal
    • Domestic Relations on Appeal: Tips for a Seldom Taken Journey
  • Contact Us
June 16, 2025

Published Decisions - Real Property

Pritchett v. Picnic Point Homeowners Association

2 Wn. App.2d, 413 P.3d 604 (2018) (interpretation of view covenant) 

Boyd v. Sunflower Properties, LLC

197 Wn. App. 137, 389 P.3d 626 (2016) (implied easement)

Overlake Farms B.L.K. III, v. Bellevue-Overlake Farm, LLC

196 Wn. App. 929, 386 P.3d 1118 (2016) (partition between cotenants)

City of Bellevue v. Pine Forest Properties, Inc.

185 Wn. App. 244, 340 P.3d 938 (2014), rev. denied, 183 Wn.2d 1016 (2015) (public use and necessity)

Holmquist v. King County

182 Wn. App. 200, 328 P.3d 1000, rev. denied, 181 Wn.2d 1029 (2014) (effect of street vacation), after remand 192 Wn. App. 551, 368 P.3d 234 (2016) (delay damages on appeal)

Collings v. City First Mortgage Services, LLC

177 Wn. App. 908, 317 P.3d 1047 (2013), rev. denied, 179 Wn.2d 1028 (2014) (mortgage fraud; bona fide purchaser doctrine)

Buck Mountain Owner's Ass'n v. Prestwich

174 Wn. App. 702, 308 P.3d 644 (2013) (easement)

Ruvalcaba v. Kwang Ho. Baek

175 Wn.2d 1, 282 P.3d 1083 (2012) (easement by necessity)

Broughton Lumber Co. v. BNSF Ry. Co.

174 Wn.2d 619, 278 P.3d 173 (2012) (timber trespass)

Westcott Homes LLC v. Chamness

146 Wn. App. 728, 192 P.3d 394 (2008) (specific performance)

Washington State Grange v. Brandt

136 Wn. App. 138, 148 P.3d 1069 (2006), rev. denied, 161 Wn.2d 1024 (2007) (rule against perpetuities)

Kirkpatrick v. Cheff

118 Wn. App. 772, 76 P.3d 1211 (2003) (discharge in bankruptcy)

Park Avenue Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Buchan Developments, L.L.C.

117 Wn. App. 369, 71 P.3d 692 (2003) (amicus; real property)

Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Baik

147 Wn.2d 536, 55 P.3d 619 (2002) (negligent misrepresentation)

Firth v. Lu

103 Wn. App. 267, 12 P.3d 618 (2000), rev'd, 146 Wn.2d 608, 49 P.3d 117 (2002) (statute of frauds)

Kim v. Lee

102 Wn. App. 586, 9 P.3d 245 (2000), rev'd, 145 Wn.2d 79, 31 P.3d 665 (2001) (equitable subrogation)

Ethridge v. Hwang

105 Wn. App. 447, 20 P.3d 958 (2001) (Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act)

Project for Informed Citizens v. Columbia County

92 Wn. App. 290, 966 P.2d 338 (1998) rev. denied, 137 Wn.2d 1020 (1999) (Growth Management Act)

U.S. v. State of Washington

157 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1060 (1999) (Indian treaty claims)

Whatcom County v. Brisbane

125 Wn.2d 345, 884 P.2d 1326 (1994) (Growth Management Act)

SAC Downtown Ltd. Partnership v. Kahn

123 Wn.2d 197, 867 P.2d 605 (1994) (tax foreclosures)

Washington Mut. Sav. Bank v. Hedreen

71 Wn. App. 1019 (1993), aff'd, 125 Wn.2d 521, 886 P.2d 1121 (1994) (reformation)

Watson v. Ingram

70 Wn. App. 45, 851 P.2d 761 (1993), aff'd, 124 Wn.2d 845, 881 P.2d 247 (1994) (liquidated damages)

©2001-2025 Smith Goodfriend, P.S. Site design by The Web Dood. All rights reserved.
Unsolicited e-mails or other contact with the firm or any of its attorneys are not privileged communications, and cannot create an attorney/client relationship or expectation of confidentiality.