Case law

Skansi v. Novak

84 Wash. 39 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1915

On cross-examination, he testified that the house he built to live in was on the bank, fifty or sixty feet above the shore line, and qualified his former answers as follows: “Q. (by Mr. Nichols). … This case is clearly ruled by the case of McNaught-Collins Improvement Co. v. May, supra, and the other decisions cited in connection with it. To hold otherwise would *47 be to return to the doctrine of Johnson v.

McKee v. American Home Products Corp.

113 Wash. 2d 701 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1989

To the contrary, an expert, if otherwise qualified, need not be licensed to practice his profession in the state of Washington in order to qualify as an expert witness. Walker v. … Those recommendations were clearly stated by the manufacturer on labels which the pharmacists, at least, were aware of.

Lakoduk v. Cruger

48 Wash. 2d 642 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1956

The fact sought to be established was that certain words were spoken and not the truth or falsity of those words. … Rogers, supra, it was held prejudicial error to instruct on section 454 without qualifying instructions explaining the restricted meaning to be ascribed to the ‘due regard’ language of that section.

State v. Bernhard

108 Wash. 2d 527 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1987

Ordinarily we would remand this case to the trial court to determine whether Teen Challenge qualifies as a special detention facility. … Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514, 517 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986). *543 First, we apply a clearly erroneous standard to determine whether the sentencing judge's reasons are supported by the record. Nordby , at 518.

BALLARD SQUARE CONDOMINIUM v. Dynasty Construction Co.

146 P.3d 914 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2006

. ¶ 23 The general rule, that as to preexisting actions a new limitations period runs from the date of its enactment, has an important qualifier. … "A statute which is clearly designed as a substitute for the prior common *924 law must be given effect." Id. at 221 , 517 P.2d 585 .

In Re King

49 P.3d 854 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 3, 2002

The Department cannot save its policy by qualifying an unambiguous mandate. "Courts should assume the Legislature means exactly what it says." Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash.2d 91, 105 , 26 P.3d 257 *857 (2001). … The Legislature amended RCW 72.09.130 in 1995 to explicitly identify the incentives as earned early release days and other privileges and clearly link these incentives to inmates' behavior and participation in education and

Doe v. Washington State Patrol

185 Wash. 2d 363 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2016

Disclosure of Level I Sex Offender Registry Information and Entered a Properly Tailored Injunction ¶46 When reviewing a trial court order enjoining disclosure under the PRA, “ ‘[w]e start with the proposition that the act establishes … As a practical matter, the PRA’s stiff monetary penalties, combined with the CPA’s grant of immunity for “the release of relevant and necessary information,” RCW 4.24.550(7), create an incentive for agencies to ignore the

Malyon v. Pierce County

131 Wash. 2d 779 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1997

The sheriff’s department neutrally sought any qualified volunteers without regard to religion. … Lynch also clearly reflects the endorsement inquiry goes to the first two prongs, not the third.

Restaurant Employees, Bartenders & Hotel Service Employees Welfare Fund v. Rhodes

90 Wash. 2d 162 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1978

It thus appears that the National Labor Relations Act clearly precludes defendant's reliance upon the prior or contemporaneous oral agreement upon which its defense to these actions is based. … To suppress industrial strife based on this type of controversy national labor policy requires that the clear and unambiguous requirements of the written collective bargaining agreement be immune from attack found on a covert

State v. Cardenas

129 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1996

The latter conclusion does not, however, establish that Cardenas knew or should have known of Michel’s vulnerability. … Clearly, nothing like that happened here. Neither can it be said that Cardenas "should have known” of Michel’s vulnerability as a pedestrian.

State v. Williams

12 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1941

A qualified engineering expert, testifying for respondents, in answer to the question “What is your opinion as to what caused the slide?” … establishing, if that be possible, a rule by which litigants and trial courts may in future determine into which class a given case may fall.”

Avnet, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue

Washington Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2016

Ed. 2d 430 (1964) ('"a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption."' (quoting Norton Co. v. Dep 't of Revenue, 340 U.S. 534, 537, 71 S. Ct. 377, 95 L. … The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the 17 No. 92080-0 burden of establishing [its] exemption."

Lankford v. Tombari

35 Wash. 2d 412 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1950

This occurred when respondent unexpectedly returned to his Marshall street residence at two p. m. and found Charlotte and appellant alone together in the house under circumstances clearly indicating adultery. … No. 6 qualified No. 3 by instructing the jury that one who “aids” in causing alienation of a wife’s affections will be liable to her husband.

Anderson v. Ferguson

17 Wash. 2d 262 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1943

In 3 Thompson, Real Property (Perm. ed. 1940) p. 516, § 1345, it is said: *266 “It is the established rule of the common law that an express covenant to repair binds the covenantor to make good any injury which human power … In any event, the common-law rule is so harsh that it ought not to be applied unless the language of the lease clearly requires it.

Public Utility District No. 1 v. Washington Water Power Co.

20 Wash. 2d 384 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1944

Between that time and the payment the owner has only a qualified use of his property. *388 He may use it as it is, but he cannot improve or sell it except subject to rights acquired by the condemnation. … Clearly, this decision cannot be said to overrule the Donofrio and Aumiller cases by implication, for the question decided in those cases was not, and could not properly be, an issue before the court upon the application

Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc.

165 Wash. 2d 200 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 3, 2008

We find a public policy of preventing domestic violence most clearly established in the State’s legislative enactments. … As in Gardner , those actions entailed leaving work for a period of time in an effort to further a clearly established public policy.

In re the Personal Restraint of Hutchinson

147 Wash. 2d 197 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2002

Because a state immunity law actually deprived the witnesses of that privilege, the witnesses were subsequently prosecuted for contempt. … We cannot conclude that Hutchinson’s personal restraint petition has established the requisite “reasonable probability”—“a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” of his trial. Id.

White v. State

131 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1997

Today it is clearly established that a State may not discharge or otherwise discipline an employee on a basis that infringes upon that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech. Rankin v. … Because we hold that the civil rights claim was properly dismissed, we do not reach the State’s issue on qualified immunity.

Matter of Personal Restraint of Cashaw

123 Wash. 2d 138 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1994

He has clearly demonstrated a lack of rehabilitation by continuing to violate the conditions of his parole and the law. … See also RCW 10.73.140 (placing additional limitations on the filing of subsequent PRP’s). 6 The Board’s administrative regulations qualify as "laws of the State of Washington” as that term is used in RAP 16.4(c)(2), (6).

Grace v. State, Dept. of Revenue

973 P.2d 1011 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1999

established preexisting state remedy. … Laws of 1987, 2d Ex.Sess., ch. 3, § 5. [11] Where the legislature has clearly stated that the statute in question is to be applied retroactively, courts will so enforce it. Landgraf v.