Case law

Crose v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft

88 Wash. 2d 50 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1977

Those corporations involved in the Volkswagen distribution scheme should not be allowed to circumvent the rights of the citizens of this state or to provide themselves with immunity merely by their choice of organizational … It is VW-America's position that the only admissible evidence in the record establishes that VW-America did not import, distribute, or otherwise control the vehicle in question and that the facts before the Superior Court

Futurewise v. Reed

161 Wash. 2d 407 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 7, 2007

And any tax increase that is shielded from referendum by an emergency clause or by the failure to qualify a referendum for the ballot would require an “advisory” vote of the people. … Philadelphia II involved an initiative that sought to establish a federal initiative process, a matter clearly not subject to state legislation. Id. at 719-20.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Gooley

196 Wash. 357 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1938

This rule is well established, and has been repeatedly followed by this court. The doctrine that a judgment, void on its face, may be attacked without any showing of merits is equally well established. … the other judgment must be shown by evidence de hors the record, but in law1 both judgments are void, and it is difficult to understand why the filing of a false affidavit or return should render a judgment based thereon immune

Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2013

State Dep 't of Ecology & Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 87703-3 prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. … AR 1 (Ecology Order 7178, at 2-3). 12 Just as Atkins would likely qualify as an expert for purposes of a trial due to his training and experience, Lemire also would likely qualify as an expert in farming, ranching, and

Woods v. Kittitas County

174 P.3d 25 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2007

RCW 36.70A.290(2) (emphasis added). ¶ 20 GMHBs do not have jurisdiction to decide challenges to site-specific land use decisions because site-specific land use decisions do not qualify as comprehensive plans or development … Second, she argued the comprehensive plan does not provide for the R-3 zone classification in rural areas and the R-3 zone cannot qualify as rural based on rulings of the three GMHBs, which require five acre densities in

Cherberg v. Peoples National Bank

88 Wash. 2d 595 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1977

Though the acts of the lessor rather clearly also involved a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, no mention is made in the court's opinion of the problem of allowing tort recovery for breach of a lease covenant. … But if the defendant went further, and acted with intent to inflict injury beyond that contemplated as a result of the mere breach of contract, I would hold that the contract does not grant the defaulter immunity from tort

In Re Detention of Williams

55 P.3d 597 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 10, 2002

One examination does not mean one expert; our rule clearly contemplates multiple examiners at an exam. Former CR 35(a). … Medical science has established standards, such as range of motion in degrees, which may be recorded by one examiner and interpreted by others.

State v. Garcia-Salgado

170 Wash. 2d 176 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2010

However, “while the determination of historical facts relevant to the establishment of probable cause is subject to the abuse of discretion standard, the legal determination of whether qualifying information as a whole amounts … It is the State’s burden to establish that an exception to the warrant requirement has been met. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d at 250 . The State has not established an exception in this case.

Department of Ecology v. City of Kirkland

84 Wash. 2d 25 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1974

statement declaring that the board was unable to render any decision or to enter any orders since four members could not concur under RCW 90.58.170: A shorelines hearings board sitting as a quasi judicial body is hereby established … As such, it in effect determined the action or proceeding and fixed a legal relationship between the parties, thus rendering that decision “ripe for review” and fully qualifying it as a “final decision” under RCW 34.04.130

Taylor v. City of Ballard

24 Wash. 191 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1901

But, in addition to the authorities, which almost universally hold misstatements by counsel will not work a reversal of a judgment unless it clearly appears that the statement was prejudicial, we are satisfied from an investigation … All the cases, of course, hold that the corporation is not required to so construct streets or walks as to secure absolute immunity from danger to people who travel upon them; and this is the question which is generally discussed

Gilmartin v. Stevens Investment Co.

43 Wash. 2d 289 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1953

Clearly, in that event, defendant would have a reason to complain. … Also, it seems irrelevant that the court ruled that the experts were qualified to express an opinion.

State v. Schelin

147 Wash. 2d 562 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2002

Meyers, The Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States, 1 Mich. L. Rev. 286 , 290-94 (1903). Equally clear is that the scope of this individual right is qualified by textual exceptions. … The evidence establishes no such thing.

Childers v. Childers

89 Wash. 2d 592 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1978

"When the term 'or' is used it is presumed to be used in the disjunctive sense, unless the legislative intent is clearly contrary." 1A C. … the equal protection clause or the privileges and immunities clause.

Tunstall v. Bergeson

141 Wash. 2d 201 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2000

The Basic Education Act, Chapter 28A.150 RCW The inmates first argue that the plain language of the basic education act clearly “establishes an education system available to all students aged 5 through 21, and excluding none … This argument is clearly without merit because, as seen in many instances, the Legislature has found entities other than school districts qualified to educate our youth.

Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc.

146 Wash. 2d 146 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2002

The customer clearly suffered injury; he had to be taken to the hospital for treatment and Gaglidari was summarily dismissed. … However, when Kohn sought to return from medical leave, she found her job had been eliminated, and she was not offered other available positions for which she may have been qualified.

Van Horn v. New Western Shingle Co.

54 Wash. 117 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1909

First, we do not think that the appellant’s ownership of the stock was put in issue by the answer; for while the answer denied each and every allegation of the complaint, except as therein expressly admitted, modified, qualified … The ruling of the court excluding testimony under the complaint until the appellant first established the fact that he was a stockholder is assigned as error, but this assignment relates merely to the order of proof, a question

Engelking v. City of Spokane

59 Wash. 446 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1910

The iveight of the raft, the heavy rope, the current of the stream, and the proximity of the falls, made the superintendence of a qualified person am imperative necessity. In Anderson v. Globe Nav. … Here, clearly, the danger causing the injury was not one ordinarily incident to the employment.

Born v. Thompson

154 Wash. 2d 749 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2005

These facts do not clearly and convincingly lead to the inference that Mr. Born intended to strike the bus driver. And the stated subjective belief of the driver that he feared Born might hit him does not establish Mr. … That finding, however, was the finding establishing a violent act. Thus, as the dissent itself explains, the determination of a violent act in this case clearly falls within the statutory provision.

Flanders v. Morris

88 Wash. 2d 183 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1977

We reasoned that the provision was an amendment to existing law, and also that it was legislation of a general and continuing nature lasting beyond the biennium, which went beyond limiting disbursements or qualifying the … The new restriction is clearly an amendment to RCW 74.04.005, adding to the restrictions already enumerated there.

James v. Kitsap County

154 Wash. 2d 574 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2005

Therefore the three-year statute of limitations clearly applies to the nearly identical claim for a refund asserted in this action absent an intervening statute changing the rule. … When persons, *596 governments, or other entities unlawfully obtain money from others, I see no reason why they should be able to immunize themselves from liability for their wrongful conduct. Return the money!