{"id":346,"date":"2016-09-24T22:01:10","date_gmt":"2016-09-24T22:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/192.249.112.188\/~goldstein\/?page_id=346"},"modified":"2016-09-24T22:01:10","modified_gmt":"2016-09-24T22:01:10","slug":"published-works","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/","title":{"rendered":"Published Works"},"content":{"rendered":"

Published Works by Jay A. Goldstein<\/h1>\n

All articles on this page are in Adobe pdf format. Download the free reader\u00a0here.<\/a><\/p>\n

Reported Cases<\/h2>\n

Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wash.2d 627, 230 P.3d 162 (2010). Survey markers insufficient to establish well-defined boundary under doctrine of mutual recognition and acquiescence.<\/p>\n

Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wash.2d 530, 105 P.3d 26 (2005). Damage to private property that was reasonably necessary to log state lands was for a public use, requiring compensation.<\/p>\n

Renfro v Kaur, 156 Wash.App 1005 (2010). Disclosure statement required and not waived in real estate purchase and sale agreement<\/p>\n

Friend v. Friend, 92 Wash.App. 799, 964 P .2d 1219, rev. denied 137 Wash.2d 1030, 980 P .2d 1283 (1999). Partition by sale of tenancy in common, not partition in kind, was appropriate remedy where, if properties were divided in kind, result would be nonconforming lots that violated county\u2019s zoning requirements, causing great prejudice to the owners.<\/p>\n

Genotti v. Mason County, SHB No. 99-011 (1999). Proposed dock not consistent with Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program.<\/p>\n

Viafore v. Mason County, SHB No. 99-033 (2000). Proposed dock not consistent with Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program.<\/p>\n

Unreported Cases<\/h2>\n

Structural Investments & Planning IV, LLC v. Schiller, 147 Wash.App. 1040 (2008). Construes timber trespass statutes RCW 4.24.630 and 64.12.030<\/p>\n

Ervin v. Muller, 117 Wash.App 1085 (2003). Compound interest appropriate; for interest rate to be usurious, it must be so at the inception of the contract; truth in lending act does not apply.<\/p>\n

Articles<\/h2>\n

“Appropriate Termination Practices”<\/a><\/p>\n

“What’s Reasonable About Attorney Fees?”<\/a><\/p>\n

“Lien Claims for Public Works Projects”<\/a><\/p>\n

“Small Claims Court”<\/a><\/p>\n

“Slap Suits”<\/a><\/p>\n

Potential Problems for Developers and Sellers (Caselaw Update)<\/a><\/p>\n

“All About RUPA”<\/a><\/p>\n

“Wetland Banking”<\/a><\/p>\n

Chalkline Articles<\/h2>\n

February 22, 1999, “Counting the Days”<\/a>
\n
March 23, 1999, “Overtime”<\/a>
\n
April 19, 1999, “Contractor Registration Exemptions”<\/a>
\n
June 25, 1999, “Be Workmanlike”<\/a>
\n
August 23, 1999, “Water Rights and Development Costs”<\/a>
\n
July 25, 1999, “No Consumer Protection Act Violation for Failure to Disclose”<\/a>
\n
May 26, 1998, “Bits & Pieces”<\/a>
\n
June 19, 1998, “Public Disclosure and Freedom of Information”<\/a>
\n
July 27, 1998, “All About Access”\u00a0<\/a>
\n
September 21, 1998, ” Current Developments in Business Law”<\/a>
\n
October 26, 1998, “GateKeepers”<\/a>
\n
November 24, 1998, “Realtor’s Beware”<\/a>
\n
March 1998, “Washington’s Implied Warranty of Habitability”<\/a>
\n
April 28, 1997, “Illegal Contracts for Land Improvement are Unenforceable”\u00a0<\/a>
\n
May 27, 1997, “New Lender and Fiduciary Protection Aids Brownfield Redevelopment”<\/a>
\n
July 22, 1997, “Disorder in the Court”<\/a>
\n
August 25, 1997, “Cobb v. Snohomish County”<\/a>
\n
June 24, 1996 “Caselaw Update of interest to Builders and Developers”<\/a>
\n
March 20, 1996, “Getting Back to Basics”<\/a>
\n
August 26, 1996, “Caselaw Update on Brokerage and Consumer Protection Act (CPA)”<\/a>
\n
October 23, 1996, “Real Estate Agency, Revisited”<\/a>
\n
October 29, 1995, “Felt v. McCarthy”<\/a>
\n
September 1994, “Berschauer v.Tumwater”<\/a>
\n
November 30, 1994, “Specific Enforcement of Real Estate Agreements”<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Published Works by Jay A. Goldstein All articles on this page are in Adobe pdf format. Download the free reader\u00a0here. Reported Cases Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wash.2d 627, 230 P.3d 162 (2010). Survey markers insufficient to establish well-defined boundary under doctrine of mutual recognition and acquiescence. Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wash.2d 530, 105 P.3d 26…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"yoast_head":"\nPublished Works - Goldstein Law Office, PLLC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Published Works - Goldstein Law Office, PLLC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Published Works by Jay A. Goldstein All articles on this page are in Adobe pdf format. Download the free reader\u00a0here. Reported Cases Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wash.2d 627, 230 P.3d 162 (2010). Survey markers insufficient to establish well-defined boundary under doctrine of mutual recognition and acquiescence. Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wash.2d 530, 105 P.3d 26…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Goldstein Law Office, PLLC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/\",\"name\":\"Published Works - Goldstein Law Office, PLLC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-09-24T22:01:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T22:01:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Published Works\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/\",\"name\":\"Goldstein Law Office, PLLC\",\"description\":\"Real Estate & Land Use Law for Olympia, Puget Sound\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Published Works - Goldstein Law Office, PLLC","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Published Works - Goldstein Law Office, PLLC","og_description":"Published Works by Jay A. Goldstein All articles on this page are in Adobe pdf format. Download the free reader\u00a0here. Reported Cases Merriman v. Cokeley, 168 Wash.2d 627, 230 P.3d 162 (2010). Survey markers insufficient to establish well-defined boundary under doctrine of mutual recognition and acquiescence. Dickgieser v. State, 153 Wash.2d 530, 105 P.3d 26…","og_url":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/","og_site_name":"Goldstein Law Office, PLLC","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/","url":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/","name":"Published Works - Goldstein Law Office, PLLC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-09-24T22:01:10+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T22:01:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/published-works\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Published Works"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/","name":"Goldstein Law Office, PLLC","description":"Real Estate & Land Use Law for Olympia, Puget Sound","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/346"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=346"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/346\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jaglaw.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}