Case law

Larsen v. Walton Plywood Co.

65 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1964

Augmentation was clearly necessary. We find no merit in this assignment of error. Are lost profits recoverable? … This witness qualified as an expert. We concur with the trial court’s determination that each of the expert witnesses was qualified to form an estimate and express a judgment on the subject matter.

State ex rel. O'Phelan v. Lundquist

103 Wash. 339 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1918

No objections were made to the order of the county commissioners establishing the district when the same was made. No appeal was taken therefrom by any *343 interested party. … Clearly, we think, they should not be permitted to avoid the costs by this form of action. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the trial court properly denied the relief sought.

Mason-Walsh-Atkinson-Kier Co. v. Case

2 Wash. 2d 33 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1939

The 1921 tax was clearly an excise tax on the sale of liquid fuel. The new sections added by the 1923 act clearly impose a tax on the use of liquid fuel in operating motor vehicles on the roads. … Under the 1933 act, claims for refunds were made by owners of motor vehicles which were qualified to operate on the highways on the ground that they had not been so operated, and that the owner had not intended that they

State v. Pope

4 Wash. 2d 394 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1940

The facts, as established by the jury’s verdict, are as follows: Appellant purchased a range and a refrigerator, under a conditional sale contract, from a mercantile company in Spokane. … The great weight of authority under the common law is clearly to the effect that the rule is applicable to all civil writs or process, including writs of replevin.

State v. Whelchel

115 Wash. 2d 708 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1990

evidence of guilt is unavailable to establish the reliability that we find absent in this case. … The trial testimony of Nancy and Beth, the two eyewitnesses to the killing, clearly established the defendant as the murderer. These two young women testified to essentially the same series of events.

Brown v. State

155 Wash. 2d 254 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2005

The reason for this amendment is that clearly in the . . . substitute and the original bill the language said that this will not be part of basic education. … We are mindful of how important attracting and retaining highly qualified educators is to the future of our state. ¶30 The people have reserved to themselves the power to legislate directly through the initiative process.

Tacoma News, Inc. v. Cayce

172 Wash. 2d 58 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2011

Following Judge Cayce's ruling on the State's immunity request, the attorney for the State of Washington asked the judge to preside over Pfeiffer's deposition. … Joseph Pfeiffer was clearly not an ordinary witness, the record making it clear that he was a key witness in the case against then-Pierce County Superior Court Judge Michael Hecht.

Gray v. Reeves

69 Wash. 374 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1912

The testimony offered on behalf of the respondents tends to establish the following facts: (1) That Mr. … The record is long and much detail might be recited, but it would be useless to do so; for we are satisfied that the testimony clearly preponderates in favor of the respondents. A point is made that Mr.

Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital v. Franklin County

120 Wash. 2d 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1993

RCW 74.09.700(1). [6, 7] RCW 70.48.130 alone clearly mandates full reimbursement by DSHS. … Clearly, the majority's application of RCW 70.48.130 to LCP-MI creates a statutory conflict.

Crowley v. City of Raymond

198 Wash. 432 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1939

It is unnecessary, however, to decide the question raised in the last paragraph, for the rule — whatever one may think of its wisdom and justice — is firmly established in this state, and in practically all of the states, … This, clearly, is not the law. In this case, the purpose is not only material, but controlling, since it qualifies and gives character to the act.

Higbee v. Shorewood Osteopathic Hospital

105 Wash. 2d 33 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1985

Co., 101 Wn.2d 238 , 676 P.2d 1002 (1984) in arguing that the dependency provisions in the special survival statute qualify all of the beneficiaries listed, including children. … They conclude that the beneficiaries under the special survival statute are identical to those under the wrongful death statute, RCW 4.20.020, which clearly exempts spouses and children from the dependency qualification.

State v. Vane

105 Wash. 170 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1919

jurors is not made a part of the record and we have no way of settling the dispute, except to pass it under the presumption that, notwithstanding the two jurors made affidavit that defendant could have a fair trial, they qualified … Some of the instructions requested might well have been given, but the rules sought to be established were covered by the instructions given, and no prejudice came to defendant.

Nostrand v. Balmer

53 Wash. 2d 460 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1959

Since section three of the 1955 act is clearly separable and a workable statute remains after its severance, we cannot sustain the above quoted conclusion of the trial court. … They have operated here with seeming immunity. Many of them hold almost impregnable positions of confidence and trust in their communities.

Ryan v. Tribune Publishing Co.

148 Wash. 295 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1928

As already stated, we are not advised as to whether, or to what extent, the admissions were qualified or the delay sought to be excused, but since the law does not presume wrongdoing or fraud, and since the publication of … or was responsible for the delay, or that the delay, of itself, establishes the intent and purpose which the publications charge.

Cunningham v. Town of Tieton

60 Wash. 2d 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1962

The fact of damage being established, the appellant cannot be immunized because of uncertainty anent the amount. This was recently examined in some detail in Wenzler & Ward Plumbing & Heating Co. v. … what was meant and said was that, in determining the question of whether or not respondents’ property had been damaged within the purview of the constitutional provision, they could take into consideration those things clearly

Gray v. Suttell & Associates

181 Wash. 2d 329 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2014

Bunker, 169 Wn.2d at 578 (under the last antecedent rule, a qualifying phrase refers to the last antecedent, but a comma before the qualifying phrase indicates that the phrase applies to all antecedents). *340 ¶18 “Solicit … Although the SEC filing does not conclusively establish that Midland Funding solicits claims for collection, it has no employees and acts only through employees of other Encore Capital subsidiaries.

State v. Baker

56 Wash. 2d 846 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1960

Whitman was not qualified to conduct spot checks to determine the chemical contents of the ampoules as he was not a chemist. *855 Lt. … We think this evidence is clearly sufficient, if believed by the jury, to support a finding of driving in a reckless manner.

Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v. Department of Social & Health Services

133 Wash. 2d 894 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1997

The duty imposed by RCW 74.13.031(1) is clearly announced in the statute. … The testimony at trial was that as many as 40 percent of homeless families do not qualify for AFDC funds.

Washington Monumental & Cut Stone Co. v. Murphy

81 Wash. 266 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1914

Taken in context, this language was clearly intended to evidence an agreement to recut only such granite then on the grounds as could be used for the purposes set out in the remainder of the same sentence with which it is … The appellant Murphy denied this, but only in a qualified way. The respondent included in its complaint $411 for this work, which the court did not allow.

State v. Pierce

455 P.3d 647 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2020

But prior to our Gregory decision, Townsend was established precedent and was applicable to the 2015 proceedings at issue here. … The State clearly has nondiscriminatory reasons for exercising its peremptory challenge against Juror Number 6." Id. at 1020. I agree with that determination; there was no error here.