Case law

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."

Wilson Court Ltd. Partnership v. Tony Maroni's, Inc.

134 Wash. 2d 692 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1998

Given the circumstance of the bank’s altering the signatures, it was clearly put on notice of a problem. … Because the bank had failed to produce extrinsic evidence of Hawk’s intent, the court turned to established rules of construction.

McGowan v. State

148 Wash. 2d 278 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2002

Section 1 states that *283 meeting this obligation requires well-qualified and experienced teachers. … It clearly seeks to expand basic education in a way that is contrary to constitutional principles.

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.

Rainier Bancorporation v. Department of Revenue

96 Wash. 2d 669 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1982

Thirty-five years after the passage of RCW 82.04.430(1) this was clearly and *678 explicitly recognized by the Department. … By this court's own definition of what the term contemplates, the plaintiff does not qualify as a "financial business".

State v. Wappenstein

67 Wash. 502 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1912

establish such fact. … In prior instructions the court had clearly defined the issue.

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.

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.

Tesoro Refining & Marketing v. State, Dor

190 P.3d 28 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2008

Tesoro argued it qualified for a tax exemption under WAC 458-20-252(7)(b) (Rule 252(7)(b)). … The word "or" in the definition of "`[c]ontrol'" is not susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations — it is clearly disjunctive.

Lige Dickson Co. v. Union Oil Co. of California

96 Wash. 2d 291 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1981

Defendant had promised plaintiff that defendant would qualify and register in Washington as a dealer in franchises. … It should be pointed out that where there exists, in statute or in case law, clearly established means under which a contract dealing with a particular subject matter may be rendered enforceable notwithstanding the statute

Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.

53 Wash. 2d 404 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1959

These principles are well established in this jurisdiction. Lesamiz v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 51 Wn. (2d) 835, 322 P. (2d) 351 . … The use of diligence and dispatch in obtaining and installing the replacement was a condition which the plaintiff was required to meet, under the terms of the policy, in order to qualify for the per diem loss of business

State v. Craig

52 Wash. 66 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1909

That case is a long and somewhat abstruse attempt to qualify the general rule. … The danger of departure from established precedent is well stated by Justice Stone in a dissenting opinion in the Parsons case: “Judicial administration is too real to enter upon such doubtful-and dangerous speculations.

Krystad v. Lau

65 Wash. 2d 827 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1965

The precise issue in the case emerges more clearly if we state respondents’ position first. … the facts show no contract establishing a term of employment.

In Re Beard's Estate

60 Wash. 2d 127 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1962

The will was admitted to probate, the executors were appointed and qualified, and an inventory and appraisal were filed. … The language preceding the phrase clearly states it must appear to the court that the estate is fully solvent. This requires a court determination, which, in a court of record, must be entered in writing.

Diaz v. NAT. CAR RENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.

17 P.3d 603 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2001

Liability Insurance or Qualified Self Insurance An automobile liability policy or qualified self-insurance arrangement provides the Authorized Driver with the minimum limits required by the automobile financial responsibility … The only qualifier is that the renter must sign up for SLI at the time of contract, which Pulliam did.

Allen v. Dillard

15 Wash. 2d 35 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1942

Dillard, who was named therein as executor thereof, qualified as such executor, and ever since has been acting as such; that Dr. … These statements, in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, clearly indicate that the uppermost thought in Dr.

Karstetter v. King County Corr. Guild

193 Wash. 2d 672 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2019

Because we conclude that Karstetter alleged facts supporting whistle-blower protection under Diocomes, we do not opine on Karstetter's contention that his actions also qualify as performance of a public duty or obligation … Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wash.2d 931 , 941, 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (establishing the four elements a plaintiff must prove under the Perritt test).

State Ex Rel. Reeves v. Loop

157 Wash. 339 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1930

The word ‘trustees’ wherever used in this act shall be held and construed to mean and include a regularly elected, qualified or acting member of the board of trustees provided for in section 3.” … The language employed in other parts of the act lends support to this view, for in all other cases commands and prohibitions are so clearly expressed as to leave nothing for construction.

In re Estate of Hambleton

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

The amendment allows the Department of Revenue (DOR) to tax qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) as part of a surviving spouse's estate. … Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process .... " Carlton, 512 U.S. at 33 (alteration in original).

State v. Suleiman

143 P.3d 795 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2006

These documents clearly establish the underlying facts, including that the women were screaming for Suleiman to slow down or stop the car, and in response he drove more aggressively. CP at 3, 6-7. … Nordby, 106 Wash.2d at 517-18 , 723 P.2d 1117 ; see also Cardenas, 129 Wash.2d at 5 , 914 P.2d 57 (applying a clearly erroneous standard to this question); State v.