drjones/astraea-books
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Snapshot: full project state

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
drjones
2026-10-06 23:43:44 -07:00
commit 17fb18ca13
79 changed files with 93751 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

257
.case-verify/snippets/harvest1.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,257 @@
{
"Littlefield": [],
"Kovacs": [],
"Chumbley": [
{
"q": "Chumbley marriage commingling acquisition",
"case": "In Re Marriage of Chumbley",
"date": "2003-08-14",
"cit": [
"74 P.3d 129"
],
"snip": "\n74 P.3d 129 (2003)\n150 Wash.2d 1\nIn re the MARRIAGE OF Gerald Steven CHUMBLEY, Respondent, and\nMary Patricia Beckmann, Petitioner.\nNo. 72539-0.\nSupreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nArgued February 25, 2003.\nDecided August 14, 2003.\n*130 Wiggins Law Office, Charles Wiggins, Kenneth Masters, Ba"
}
],
"Short": [
{
"q": "Short marriage characterization 61176-9",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Short",
"date": "1995-05-10",
"cit": [
"890 P.2d 12",
"125 Wash. 2d 865"
],
"snip": "\n125 Wn.2d 865 (1995)\n890 P.2d 12\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of ROBERT T. SHORT, Petitioner, and PATRICIA A. SHORT, Respondent.\nNo. 61176-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nFebruary 23, 1995.\nAs amended by order May 10, 1995.\nMaltman, Reed, North, Ahrens & Malnati, P.S., by Douglass A. North; Hollis Holman</"
}
],
"Borghi": [
{
"q": "Borghi estate community property presumption",
"case": "In Re Estate of Borghi",
"date": "2009-11-05",
"cit": [
"219 P.3d 932"
],
"snip": "\n219 P.3d 932 (2009)\nIn the Matter of the ESTATE Of Jeanette L. BORGHI, Deceased.\nBobby G. Borghi, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeanette L. Borghi, Appellant,\nv.\nArthur R. Gilroy, Respondent.\nNo. 80925-9.\nSupreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nArgued March 24, 2009.\nDecided November 5, 2009.\n*933 Ca"
},
{
"q": "Borghi Gilroy separate property tracing",
"case": "Borghi v. Gilroy",
"date": "2009-11-05",
"cit": [
"167 Wash. 2d 480"
],
"snip": "\nStephens, J.\n\u00b61 This case concerns a dispute between the estate of Jeanette L. Borghi (Estate) and her son, Arthur Gilroy, over the characterization of real property acquired by Jeanette Borghi prior to her marriage to Robert1 Borghi and subsequently titled in both Robert and *482Jeanette Borghi\u2019s names. At the center of this dispute are appa"
},
{
"q": "Borghi estate clear and convincing",
"case": "In Re Estate of Borghi",
"date": "2009-11-05",
"cit": [
"219 P.3d 932"
],
"snip": "\n219 P.3d 932 (2009)\nIn the Matter of the ESTATE Of Jeanette L. BORGHI, Deceased.\nBobby G. Borghi, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jeanette L. Borghi, Appellant,\nv.\nArthur R. Gilroy, Respondent.\nNo. 80925-9.\nSupreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nArgued March 24, 2009.\nDecided November 5, 2009.\n*933 Ca"
}
],
"Elam": [
{
"q": "Elam marriage presumption community burden",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Elam",
"date": "1982-09-02",
"cit": [
"650 P.2d 213",
"97 Wash. 2d 811"
],
"snip": "\n97 Wn.2d 811 (1982)\n650 P.2d 213\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of NORMA IRIS ELAM, Respondent, and STANLEY PATRICK ELAM, Appellant.\nNo. 48219-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nSeptember 2, 1982.\nClinton J. Henderson, for appellant.\nJay Roy Jones, for respondent.\nDOLLIVER, J.\nThis case was certified from D"
}
],
"Konzen": [],
"Skarbek": [
{
"q": "Skarbek marriage separate property intent",
"case": "In re the Marriage of Skarbek",
"date": "2000-04-18",
"cit": [
"100 Wash. App. 444"
],
"snip": "\nSweeney, J.\n\u2014 A rebuttable presumption arises that property acquired during marriage with separate funds is a gift to the community. In re Marriage of Hurd, 69 Wn. App. 38, 51, 848 P.2d 185 (1993). But depositing separate funds in a joint bank account is not an acquisition of property; therefore, no presumption attaches. John Skarbek deposited separate funds in a joint account. But he then traced and identified the separ"
},
{
"q": "Skarbek marriage commingling community",
"case": "In re the Marriage of Skarbek",
"date": "2000-04-18",
"cit": [
"100 Wash. App. 444"
],
"snip": "\nSweeney, J.\n\u2014 A rebuttable presumption arises that property acquired during marriage with separate funds is a gift to the community. In re Marriage of Hurd, 69 Wn. App. 38, 51, 848 P.2d 185 (1993). But depositing separate funds in a joint bank account is not an acquisition of property; therefore, no presumption attaches. John Skarbek deposited separate funds in a joint account. But he then traced and identified the separ"
}
],
"PearsonMaines": [
{
"q": "Pearson-Maines marriage gift presumption",
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Pearson-Maines",
"date": "1993-08-09",
"cit": [
"855 P.2d 1210",
"70 Wash. App. 860"
],
"snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 860 (1993)\n855 P.2d 1210\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of CHERYL L. PEARSON-MAINES, Respondent, and CHESTER E. MAINES, Appellant.\nNo. 29873-9-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nAugust 9, 1993.\nRichard W. Swanson and Millikan & Swanson, for appellant.\nGail B. Nunn and Arnett-Kremiaan &am;"
}
],
"Olivares": [
{
"q": "Olivares marriage characterization",
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Olivares",
"date": "1993-04-12",
"cit": [
"848 P.2d 1281",
"69 Wash. App. 324"
],
"snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 324 (1993)\n848 P.2d 1281\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of STEPHEN R. OLIVARES, Appellant, and THERESA R. OLIVARES, Respondent.\nNo. 28758-3-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nApril 12, 1993.\nPhilip A. Talmadge, Celeste A. McDonell, and Talmadge & Cutler, P.S.; Thomas D. Bigsby and Bigsby & Willson"
}
],
"Sedlock": [
{
"q": "Sedlock marriage separate property agreement",
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Sedlock",
"date": "1993-04-26",
"cit": [
"849 P.2d 1243",
"69 Wash. App. 484"
],
"snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 484 (1993)\n849 P.2d 1243\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of MARCIA SEDLOCK, Appellant, and THOMAS SEDLOCK, Respondent.\nNo. 28848-2-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nApril 26, 1993.\n*486 H. Michael Fields and Anderson & Fields, for appellant.\nWilliam L. Kinze"
},
{
"q": "Sedlock marriage characterization",
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Sedlock",
"date": "1993-04-26",
"cit": [
"849 P.2d 1243",
"69 Wash. App. 484"
],
"snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 484 (1993)\n849 P.2d 1243\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of MARCIA SEDLOCK, Appellant, and THOMAS SEDLOCK, Respondent.\nNo. 28848-2-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nApril 26, 1993.\n*486 H. Michael Fields and Anderson & Fields, for appellant.\nWilliam L. Kinze"
}
],
"Glorfield": [],
"Hadley": [
{
"q": "Hadley marriage separate property division",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
"date": "1977-06-09",
"cit": [
"565 P.2d 790",
"88 Wash. 2d 649"
],
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
},
{
"q": "Hadley marriage 88 Wash.2d 649",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
"date": "1977-06-09",
"cit": [
"565 P.2d 790",
"88 Wash. 2d 649"
],
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
},
{
"q": "Hadley marriage just and equitable",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
"date": "1977-06-09",
"cit": [
"565 P.2d 790",
"88 Wash. 2d 649"
],
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
}
],
"Schwarz": [
{
"q": "Schwarz marriage commingling tracing",
"case": "Damian Schwarz v. Susan M. Schwarz",
"date": "2016-01-12",
"cit": [
"192 Wash. App. 180",
"368 P.3d 173"
],
"snip": "\n\n\n \n *184\n \n Siddoway, C.J.\n \n\n \u00b61 Susan Champagne appeals the property distribution ordered upon the dissolution of her marriage to Damian Schwarz. She challenges the trial court\u2019s characterization and distribution of several of her and Mr. Schwarz\u2019s retirement and other investment accounts. The character of the accou"
}
],
"Kraft": [
{
"q": "Kraft marriage separate property division dissolution",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Kraft",
"date": "1992-07-23",
"cit": [
"832 P.2d 871",
"119 Wash. 2d 438"
],
"snip": "\n119 Wn.2d 438 (1992)\n832 P.2d 871\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of DONNA L. KRAFT, Petitioner, and BRYCE A. KRAFT, Respondent.\nNo. 58247-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nJuly 23, 1992.\n*440 Chris A. Montgomery, for petitioner.\nSalina, Sanger & Gauper, by Allen M. Gauper,"
},
{
"q": "Kraft marriage 119 Wash.2d 438",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Kraft",
"date": "1992-07-23",
"cit": [
"832 P.2d 871",
"119 Wash. 2d 438"
],
"snip": "\n119 Wn.2d 438 (1992)\n832 P.2d 871\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of DONNA L. KRAFT, Petitioner, and BRYCE A. KRAFT, Respondent.\nNo. 58247-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nJuly 23, 1992.\n*440 Chris A. Montgomery, for petitioner.\nSalina, Sanger & Gauper, by Allen M. Gauper,"
}
],
"Berol": [
{
"q": "Berol separate property deed community",
"case": "Abel v. Abel",
"date": "1955-11-10",
"cit": [
"289 P.2d 724",
"47 Wash. 2d 816"
],
"snip": "\n47 Wn.2d 816 (1955)\n289 P.2d 724\nEVA M. ABEL, Respondent,\nv.\nWALTER CLIVE ABEL, Appellant.[1]\nNo. 33259.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, Department One.\nNovember 10, 1955.\n*818 Lester T. Parker and Clark W. Adams, for appellant.\nPaul O. Manley and William L. Hyndm"
},
{
"q": "Berol v. Berol characterization",
"case": "deElche v. Jacobsen",
"date": "1980-12-31",
"cit": [
"622 P.2d 835",
"95 Wash. 2d 237"
],
"snip": "\n*248Horowitz, J.\n(dissenting) \u2014 I dissent from the majority's imposition of liability for the separate tort of one spouse upon the property of the marital community. The extension of community liability is inconsistent with the concept of community property in this state and further is unjustified and unwise without explicit statutory authority.\nI\n"
}
],
"Brewer": [
{
"q": "Brewer marriage separate property division",
"case": "In re the Marriage of Brewer",
"date": "1999-05-06",
"cit": [
"137 Wash. 2d 756",
"976 P.2d 102"
],
"snip": "\nGuy, C.J.\n(concurring) \u2014 I agree with the majority that the rule enunciated in In re Marriage of Brown, 100 Wn.2d 729, 675 P.2d 1207 (1984), applies to wage-replacement disability insurance benefits. I write separately because (1) I would specifically overrule Chase v. Chase, 74 Wn.2d 253, 444 P.2d 145 (1968), and (2) I would clarify that post-dissolution wage-replacement benefits are not \u201cassets\u201d that are be"
},
{
"q": "Brewer marriage just and equitable property",
"case": "In re the Marriage of Brewer",
"date": "1999-05-06",
"cit": [
"137 Wash. 2d 756",
"976 P.2d 102"
],
"snip": "\nSmith, J.\nPetitioner Michael A. Brewer seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division Two, which reversed and remanded to the Clark County Superior Court a ruling characterizing monthly payments to a permanently disabled spouse under a private disability insurance policy after dissolution of a marriage as separate property and not community property. We granted review. We affirm the Court of Appeals in part and re"
},
{
"q": "Brewer marriage 137 Wash.2d",
"case": "In re the Marriage of Brewer",
"date": "1999-05-06",
"cit": [
"137 Wash. 2d 756",
"976 P.2d 102"
],
"snip": "\nGuy, C.J.\n(concurring) \u2014 I agree with the majority that the rule enunciated in In re Marriage of Brown, 100 Wn.2d 729, 675 P.2d 1207 (1984), applies to wage-replacement disability insurance benefits. I write separately because (1) I would specifically overrule Chase v. Chase, 74 Wn.2d 253, 444 P.2d 145 (1968), and (2) I would clarify that post-dissolution wage-replacement benefits are not \u201cassets\u201d that are be"
}
],
"Mueller": []
}

288
.case-verify/snippets/harvest2.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
{
"Littlefield": [],
"Kovacs": [],
"Chumbley": [
{
"q": "separate funds community funds acquisition",
"case": "In re the Marriage of Chumbley",
"date": "2003-08-14",
"cit": [
"150 Wash. 2d 1"
],
"snip": "\nMadsen, J.\nDuring her marriage to Gerald Chumbley, Mary Patricia Beckmann acquired stock options through her employment. Beckmann exercised the options on three occasions, once by using a loan from her employer, once by using money from her separate account, and once by selling a portion of the purchased stock in order to pay for the remaining stocks. The dispute here involves the characterization of the stocks resulting from the "
}
],
"Short": [
{
"q": "transmutation separate property",
"case": "Covell v. City of Seattle",
"date": "1995-11-02",
"cit": [
"905 P.2d 324",
"127 Wash. 2d 874"
],
"snip": "\nMadsen, J.\nLibby Coveil and John Backus, individually and as representatives of the class of persons similarly situated, appeal from a judgment upholding the City of Seattle\u2019s residential street utility charge. The principal issue is whether this charge is an unconstitutionally imposed property tax.\nThe statutory authority for the residential street utility charge is RCW 82.80.040. This statute authorizes ever"
},
{
"q": "presumption community gift",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Short",
"date": "1995-05-10",
"cit": [
"890 P.2d 12",
"125 Wash. 2d 865"
],
"snip": "\n125 Wn.2d 865 (1995)\n890 P.2d 12\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of ROBERT T. SHORT, Petitioner, and PATRICIA A. SHORT, Respondent.\nNo. 61176-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nFebruary 23, 1995.\nAs amended by order May 10, 1995.\nMaltman, Reed, North, Ahrens & Malnati, P.S., by Douglass A. North; Hollis Holman</"
}
],
"Borghi": [
{
"q": "commingling separate funds",
"case": "In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hicks",
"date": "2009-08-27",
"cit": [
"166 Wash. 2d 774"
],
"snip": "\nAlexander, C.J.\n\u00b61 \u2014Attorney S. Richard Hicks appeals the recommendation of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Disciplinary Board (Board) that he be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 24 months. The WSBA asks us to reject the Board\u2019s recommended sanction and disbar Hicks. We adopt the Board\u2019s recommendation and order Hicks suspended for 24 months.\nI\n\u00b62 Hicks was admit"
},
{
"q": "presumption community property title",
"case": "Borghi v. Gilroy",
"date": "2009-11-05",
"cit": [
"167 Wash. 2d 480"
],
"snip": "\nMadsen, J.\n\u00b619 (concurring) \u2014 The character of property as separate or community is established at acquisition, not at the time of payment, delivery, or conveyance. In re Marriage of Skarbek, 100 Wn. App. 444, 447, 997 P.2d 447 (2000). Property acquired before marriage is presump*492tively separate property. Id. Once established, separate property reta"
}
],
"Elam": [
{
"q": "gift presumption community property",
"case": "Estate of Madsen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue",
"date": "1982-08-26",
"cit": [
"650 P.2d 196",
"97 Wash. 2d 792"
],
"snip": "\nWilliams, J.\nThis is a federal estate tax case wherein appellee, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, sought to recover $24,412.84 in estate taxes from appellant, Estate of Mattias Arnold Madsen. A deficiency was noted for failure to include one-half of the proceeds of a $200,000 life insurance policy in the gross estate of Mr. Madsen. The United States Tax Court ruled that one-half of the insurance proceeds were includable in the"
},
{
"q": "clear and convincing separate property",
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Brown",
"date": "1982-11-10",
"cit": [
"653 P.2d 602",
"98 Wash. 2d 46"
],
"snip": "\n98 Wn.2d 46 (1982)\n653 P.2d 602\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of ARCHIE LEE BROWN, Appellant, and CHARLOTTE BROWN, Respondent. In the Matter of the Marriage of RONALD WAYNE WONDERS, Appellant, and ELENORE GERTRUD WONDERS, Respondent.\nNos. 48204-7, 48245-4.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nNovember 10, 1982.\nTalbot, Orlandini & Waldron"
},
{
"q": "characterization acquisition",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Dessauer",
"date": "1982-09-09",
"cit": [
"650 P.2d 1099",
"97 Wash. 2d 831"
],
"snip": "\n97 Wn.2d 831 (1982)\n650 P.2d 1099\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of KURT DESSAUER, Appellant, and HEDWIG DESSAUER, Respondent.\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of SUSAN L. SALERNO, Respondent, and SALVATORE SALERNO, Appellant.\nNos. 46832-0, 47973-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nSeptember 9, 1982.\nSimonarson, Visser, Zender, Brandt, Th"
}
],
"Konzen": [
{
"q": "characterization date of acquisition",
"case": "State v. O'NEILL",
"date": "1985-05-30",
"cit": [
"700 P.2d 711",
"103 Wash. 2d 853"
],
"snip": "\n103 Wn.2d 853 (1985)\n700 P.2d 711\nTHE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,\nv.\nCHONG SIM O'NEILL, ET AL, Petitioners.\nNo. 50372-9.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nMay 30, 1985.\nHerrmann & Levenson, by Ellsworth I. Connelly and Jeffrey D. Gross, for petitioners O'Neill and Fowler.\nNeil J. Hoff, for p"
},
{
"q": "separate property commingling",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Landry",
"date": "1985-05-09",
"cit": [
"699 P.2d 214",
"103 Wash. 2d 807"
],
"snip": "\n103 Wn.2d 807 (1985)\n699 P.2d 214\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of NANCY M. LANDRY, Appellant, and WILLIAM F. LANDRY, Respondent.\nNo. 51141-1.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nMay 9, 1985.\n*808 Marcia A. Mellinger, for appellant.\nHennings, Maltman, Weber & Reed, by Douglass A. "
}
],
"Mueller": [],
"Glorfield": [
{
"q": "gift community presumption",
"case": "Peters v. Skalman",
"date": "1980-09-12",
"cit": [
"617 P.2d 448",
"27 Wash. App. 247"
],
"snip": "\n27 Wn. App. 247 (1980)\n617 P.2d 448\nJOHN PETERS, ET AL, Respondents,\nv.\nJEANNINE SKALMAN, ET AL, Appellants. GWENDOLYN McFARLANE, ET AL, Appellants,\nv.\nJOHN PETERS, ET AL, Respondents. ESTATE OF WILLIAM C. PETERS, Plaintiff,\nv.\nJOHN PETERS, ET AL, Respondents.\nNo. 3613-II.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.\nSeptember 12, 19"
}
],
"PearsonMaines": [
{
"q": "commingling characterization",
"case": "Matter of Marriage of Pearson-Maines",
"date": "1993-08-09",
"cit": [
"855 P.2d 1210",
"70 Wash. App. 860"
],
"snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 860 (1993)\n855 P.2d 1210\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of CHERYL L. PEARSON-MAINES, Respondent, and CHESTER E. MAINES, Appellant.\nNo. 29873-9-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nAugust 9, 1993.\nRichard W. Swanson and Millikan & Swanson, for appellant.\nGail B. Nunn and Arnett-Kremiaan &am;"
}
],
"Olivares": [
{
"q": "transmutation separate property",
"case": "Hill v. J.C. Penney, Inc.",
"date": "1993-06-07",
"cit": [
"852 P.2d 1111",
"70 Wash. App. 225"
],
"snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 225 (1993)\n852 P.2d 1111\nROBIN BARTLEY HILL, Respondent,\nv.\nJ.C. PENNEY, INC., Appellant.\nNo. 14764-5-II.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.\nJune 7, 1993.\n*227 Thomas A. Lemly and Davis Wright Tremaine, for appellant.\nRichard D. Smith and Smith &"
},
{
"q": "intent transmutation evidence",
"case": "Paiya v. Durham Construction Co.",
"date": "1993-04-26",
"cit": [
"69 Wash. App. 578",
"849 P.2d 660"
],
"snip": "\nWebster, C.J.\nDr. John P. Lorge III, a chiropractor, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a protective *579order requiring counsel for Durham Construction Company (Durham) to pay expert witness fees for his deposition. Lorge claims the trial court erred in classifying him as an occurrence witness rather than an expert witness.\nFacts\n"
}
],
"Sedlock": [
{
"q": "transmutation agreement separate community",
"case": "Hill v. J.C. Penney, Inc.",
"date": "1993-06-07",
"cit": [
"852 P.2d 1111",
"70 Wash. App. 225"
],
"snip": "\n70 Wn. App. 225 (1993)\n852 P.2d 1111\nROBIN BARTLEY HILL, Respondent,\nv.\nJ.C. PENNEY, INC., Appellant.\nNo. 14764-5-II.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.\nJune 7, 1993.\n*227 Thomas A. Lemly and Davis Wright Tremaine, for appellant.\nRichard D. Smith and Smith &"
},
{
"q": "characterization intent",
"case": "State v. McClam",
"date": "1993-05-17",
"cit": [
"850 P.2d 1377",
"69 Wash. App. 885"
],
"snip": "\n69 Wn. App. 885 (1993)\n850 P.2d 1377\nTHE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,\nv.\nSTEVEN McCLAM, Appellant.\nNo. 29434-2-I.\nThe Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.\nMay 17, 1993.\n*886 Lisa Dworkin of Washington Appellate Defender Association, for appellant.\nNorm Maleng, Prosecuti"
}
],
"Hadley": [
{
"q": "separate property division award",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
"date": "1977-06-09",
"cit": [
"565 P.2d 790",
"88 Wash. 2d 649"
],
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
},
{
"q": "court may not award separate property",
"case": "Strenge v. Clarke",
"date": "1977-09-08",
"cit": [
"569 P.2d 60",
"89 Wash. 2d 23"
],
"snip": "\n*31Wright, C.J.\n(dissenting)\u2014I dissent. The majority has ignored many fundamental principles of law to reach their result.\nPetitioner sought to recover treble damages for abusive collection practices, as provided by RCW 19.16.440, which designates the practices enumerated in RCW 19.16.250 as being per se violations of the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86. "
},
{
"q": "just and equitable division",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Hadley",
"date": "1977-06-09",
"cit": [
"565 P.2d 790",
"88 Wash. 2d 649"
],
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nThis is an appeal of the property division and maintenance award in a decree of dissolution. Appeal to this court was allowed pursuant to ROA I-14(e) (now RAP 4.2(a)(4)), due to \"fundamental and urgent issues of broad public import requiring prompt and ultimate determination\" presented by this case. Mr. Hadley, the respondent, has cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees to the wife.\nRichard and"
}
],
"Schwarz": [
{
"q": "equitable lien community funds separate property",
"case": "Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Valerie J. Slotke",
"date": "2016-01-11",
"cit": [
"192 Wash. App. 166",
"367 P.3d 600"
],
"snip": "\n\n\n Verellen, A.C.J.\n \n\n \u00b61 The holder of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust has authority to elect to commence a judicial foreclosure of that deed of trust. After Valerie Slotke defaulted on her promissory note, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company elected to commence an action to judicially foreclose the deed of trust securing her delinquent note. Slotke appeals the order granti"
},
{
"q": "commingling tracing accounts",
"case": "Damian Schwarz v. Susan M. Schwarz",
"date": "2016-01-12",
"cit": [
"192 Wash. App. 180",
"368 P.3d 173"
],
"snip": "\n\n\n \n *184\n \n Siddoway, C.J.\n \n\n \u00b61 Susan Champagne appeals the property distribution ordered upon the dissolution of her marriage to Damian Schwarz. She challenges the trial court\u2019s characterization and distribution of several of her and Mr. Schwarz\u2019s retirement and other investment accounts. The character of the accou"
}
],
"Kraft": [
{
"q": "separate property division dissolution",
"case": "In Re the Marriage of Kraft",
"date": "1992-07-23",
"cit": [
"832 P.2d 871",
"119 Wash. 2d 438"
],
"snip": "\n119 Wn.2d 438 (1992)\n832 P.2d 871\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of DONNA L. KRAFT, Petitioner, and BRYCE A. KRAFT, Respondent.\nNo. 58247-5.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.\nJuly 23, 1992.\n*440 Chris A. Montgomery, for petitioner.\nSalina, Sanger & Gauper, by Allen M. Gauper,"
},
{
"q": "exceptional circumstances separate property",
"case": "Tellevik v. Real Property Known as 31641",
"date": "1992-10-15",
"cit": [
"120 Wash. 2d 68",
"838 P.2d 111"
],
"snip": "\nDolliver, J.\nPlaintiffs in both these consolidated cases appeal from trial court decisions which held RCW 69.50-.505(b), authorizing the seizure of real property subject to forfeiture, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to seizure of a private residence and residential rental property. The trial courts reached these conclusions by ruling the statute fails to provide minimal due process safeguards under the United Stat"
},
{
"q": "property characterization acquisition",
"case": "In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hart",
"date": "1992-01-16",
"cit": [
"118 Wash. 2d 280",
"822 P.2d 264"
],
"snip": "\nGuy, J.\nRichard W. Hart was disbarred by this court in 1977 following his conviction for misuse of estate assets that came into his charge as trustee. He petitions for reinstatement. We deny the petition.\nBackground\nRichard W. Hart is 62 years old. Upon graduation from high school, Mr. Hart entered the United States Air Force and received a bad conduct discharge. In 1949, he was convicted o"
}
],
"Berol": [
{
"q": "deed presumption community property",
"case": "Burch v. Rice",
"date": "1950-10-05",
"cit": [
"222 P.2d 847",
"37 Wash. 2d 185"
],
"snip": "\n37 Wn.2d 185 (1950)\n222 P.2d 847\nVIRGIL A. BURCH, Appellant,\nv.\nZADA BURCH RICE et al., Respondents.[1]\nNo. 31265.\nThe Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two.\nOctober 5, 1950.\nHarold M. Gleeson, for appellant.\nKeith, Winston, MacGillivray & Repsold, for respondents.\nSIMPSON, C.J.\nPlaintif"
},
{
"q": "gift deed community",
"case": "Wheeler v. Wheeler",
"date": "1950-09-22",
"cit": [
"222 P.2d 400",
"37 Wash. 2d 159"
],
"snip": "\nBeals, J.\nThe plaintiff, Margaret E. Wheeler, and the defendant, Thurlow W. Wheeler, Jr., intermarried in February, 1936. Their first child, Thomas, was born in 1937, and a second son, Robert, was born in 1940. February 15, 1944, plaintiff filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court for King county a complaint, asking for a divorce from defendant and praying that the custody of the minor children be awarded to her, an"
}
]
}

72
.case-verify/snippets/harvest3.json Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
{
"Littlefield_own": [],
"Littlefield_cited": [
{
"q": "\"Littlefield\" commingling tracing separate",
"err": "HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests"
}
],
"Kovacs_own": [
{
"q": "transmutation \"joint tenancy\"",
"err": "HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests"
},
{
"q": "\"source of funds\" acquisition",
"err": "HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests"
}
],
"Kovacs_cited": [],
"Short_own": [],
"Short_cited": [
{
"q": "\"In re Marriage of Short\"",
"case": "State v. Coria",
"date": "2002-06-27",
"cit": [
"146 Wash. 2d 631",
"48 P.3d 980"
],
"snip": "\nMadsen, J.\n(concurring) \u2014 While I agree with the majority that \u201cproperty of another\u201d includes the one-half interest of a spouse in community property, I write separately to make it clear that only the value of the victim\u2019s one-half interest in the community property may be considered when determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for malicious mischief in the second degree.\nDiscu"
}
],
"Elam_own": [],
"Konzen_own": [],
"Mueller_own": [
{
"q": "commingling \"reasonable certainty\"",
"err": "HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests"
}
],
"Glorfield_own": [
{
"q": "transmutation community intent",
"err": "HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests"
}
],
"PearsonM_own": [],
"Olivares_own": [],
"Sedlock_own": [],
"Hadley_cited": [
{
"q": "\"Hadley\" separate property division",
"case": "Williams v. City of Spokane",
"date": "2022-03-03",
"cit": [
"505 P.3d 91",
"199 Wash. 2d 236"
],
"snip": " FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED\n FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON\n IN CLERK\u2019S OFFICE MARCH 3, 2022\nSUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON\n MARCH 3, 2022\n ERIN L. LENNON\n "
}
],
"Kraft_cited": [
{
"q": "\"Kraft\" separate property \"economic circumstances\"",
"case": "Douglas Niemi, V. Mariah Niemi",
"date": "2021-10-04",
"cit": [],
"snip": " IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON\n DIVISION ONE\n\nIn the Matter of the Marriage of ) No. 82549-6-I\nDOUGLAS NIEMI, )\n )\n Appellant, )\n )\n and ) PUBLISHED OPINION\n "
}
],
"Berol_own": []
}