Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 409 P.2d 466 (1965). 46 Id. at 664. 47 SAK refers to section 20 of the subcontract, which requires that the subcontractor give notice of a claim or dispute within 14 days of the occurrence of a problem, dispute, claim or delay event, or the claim will not be reimbursed. 48 Ferguson asserts that the trial court’s ruling on this issue (raised in Ferguson’s first summary judgment motion) was error and offers this as another basis on which to affirm the trial court. But Ferguson neither cross appealed nor assigned error to this ruling, which rejected Ferguson’s argument that SAK’s failure to comply with the notice and claim requirements barred SAK’s lawsuit. Thus, this argument is not within the scope of our review. But see Realm v. City of Olympia, 168 Wn. App. 1, 8, 277 P.3d 679 (2012) (<HOLDING>). 49 Cook v. Brateng, 180 Wn. App. 368, 375, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city (B) holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract (C) holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city (D) holding that contractor waived right to sue city by failing to comply with notice provisions in the contract that were preconditions to litigation against the city (E) holding that mailing a copy of a notice of appeal that was filed in the trial court to the city law director does not constitute filing the notice of appeal with the city board of zoning appeals
Output (English): holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city