Merriman v. Cokeley

Supreme Court of Washington · Decided 2010-04-08

Cited by 101 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Per Curiam ¶1 Paul and Dianne Cokeley seek review of a Court of Appeals decision holding that Scott and Kim Merriman sufficiently proved a clear and well-defined boundary between the parties’ properties sufficient to establish the boundary by mutual recognition and acquiescence. Because we agree with the trial court that the Merrimans failed to prove a clear and well-defined boundary by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, we…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.