Case law

State v. Osman

139 P.3d 334 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 3, 2006

Osman further argued that the only way he could receive treatment was if the court imposed a SSOSA because, as a deportable alien, he did not qualify for treatment while in prison, a claim directly contradicted by the PSI … XIV, § 1). [10] Article I, section 12 states: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong

Morgan v. Carbon Hill Coal Co.

6 Wash. 577 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1893

I think in the first place that the negligence of the respondent was clearly proven. … He had as much right to rely on the duty of the master to furnish a fire boss who was qualified to rightly perform the duties of his office, as upon the duty of the master to furnish suitable and safe machinery.

John Doe A v. Wash. State Patrol

Washington Supreme Court · Apr 7, 2016

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY INFORMATION AND ENTERED A PROPERLY TAILORED INJUNCTION When reviewing a trial court order enjoining disclosure under the PRA, "' [w ]e start with the proposition that the act establishes … Specifically, the trial court found that the evidence submitted-declarations by individual class members, class members' parents, and several experts-"establishes that sex offenders who are identified by public disclosure

State v. Ross

95 P.3d 1225 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2009

We have established that "illegal or erroneous sentences may be challenged for the first time on appeal." Ford, 137 Wash.2d at 477 , 973 P.2d 452 (citing State v. … We also clarified that the term "privileges and immunities" in article I, section 12 pertain only to "`those fundamental rights which belong to the citizens of the state by reason of such citizenship.'"

State v. Barnett

139 Wash. 2d 462 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1999

Although Barnett initially resisted the police dog and was bitten as a result, a police dog is clearly not a “person.” … Clearly first degree burglary based on unarmed assault is a crime against a person.

State v. Ide

67 L.R.A. 280 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1904

It is levied for a public purpose, and is clearly a revenue measure. But its assessment is not governed by the general revenue law, or, strictly speaking, by § 2 of art. … And they clearly indicate, especially the latter, that the legislature may authorize the taxation, by cities, of persons, *585 as well as property, within their limits.

State v. Johnson

179 Wash. 2d 534 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2014

. ¶17 In the context of former RCW 46.20.342(l)(c)(iv), the reference to former RCW 46.20.289 is clearly intended to serve the purpose of adding clarity and definition to the terms preceding it. Cf. Cuyler v. … Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 578 , 238 P.3d 487 (2010) (“Related to this [last antecedent] rule is the corollary principle that ‘the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply

State v. Wanrow

88 Wash. 2d 221 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1977

These cases reassert the principle most clearly enunciated in McKenzie v. … Under the well-established rule, this error is presumed to have been prejudicial.

State v. Jenks

197 Wash. 2d 708 · Washington Supreme Court · May 27, 2021

This contrasts clearly with cases where we found such intent. … And, in the non-POAA context, courts may impose sentences below the standard range provided mitigating circumstances are established.

Lamborn v. Phillips Pacific Chemical Co.

89 Wash. 2d 701 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1978

Also, facts tending to establish a party's theory, or to qualify or disprove the testimony of an adversary, are relevant. Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Constr. Co., 87 Wn.2d 85, 89 , 549 P.2d 483 (1976); Ladley v. … In this case the record clearly demonstrates appellant's total lack of due care in failing to wear a gas mask or even to ask for safety instructions.

State v. Sullivan

65 Wash. 2d 47 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1964

See: 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 75 (1961); Henry v. United States (1959), 361 U.S. 98 ; United States v. Boston (1964), 330 F. (2d) 937, 939. … I cannot agree that the search of appellant is valid under the rules of the previously cited cases or that it qualifies as a search without a warrant, as discussed in Preston v.

Oliver v. Dupee

16 Wash. 634 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1897

against the attempted purchase by the respondents; that appellant had no legal claim to the land in controversy; that the land belonged to the third class, and must be sold to the first applicant; and that appellant was not a qualified … But the application there was for a writ of mandamus, and in order to grant such a writ the rights of the relator must be clearly established, while in this case the matter came before *641 the superior court by way of an

Sebastian v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES

12 P.3d 594 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 2, 2000

Clearly, there was an intent to compensate crime victims; clearly there was an intent to contain costs. Beyond that, the history gives little guidance, and neither principle answers the question here. … In 1982, Second Substitute House Bill 828 reinstated application of the program to all qualifying victims. Laws of 1982, 1st Ex.Sess., ch. 8, § 2.

Maitlen v. Hazen

9 Wash. 2d 113 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1941

Under these facts, we are clearly of the opinion that respondents cannot be said to have failed to use slight care, but we are of the opinion, under all the facts, that Mr. … This testimony, together with that given by Gerald and by appellant herself, it seems to us, clearly overcame the presumption established by the adjudication.

Futurewise v. Reed

166 P.3d 708 · 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.

In re the Personal Restraint of Yates

177 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2013

Yates’s petition, however, clearly alleges only a facial challenge to the process of death qualification. … The second and third of these statements clearly do not establish a closure. With respect to the second statement, evidence of absence is not evidence of exclusion.

State Ex Rel. Troy v. Yelle

27 Wash. 2d 99 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1947

governor appointed the relators, who are all elected officers of the state; and, since their appointment, the relators Wanamaker, Reeves, Fluent, and Meyers, and, since August, 1945, the relator Troy, have been duly appointed, qualified … But we are clearly of the opinion that it should not be the rule, and that it was not the intention of this court in any of its former decisions to say, that for performing additional duties provided by an act passed subsequent

Agrilink Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

153 Wash. 2d 392 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 13, 2005

The court reasoned that each of the activities listed in the statute is clearly disjunctive, indicating that any person undertaking one such activity is entitled to the lower rate. … First, we note the complete absence of any express language establishing such a requirement.

State v. Barnett

987 P.2d 626 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1999

Although Barnett initially resisted the police dog and was bitten as a result, a police dog is clearly not a "person." … Clearly first degree burglary based on unarmed assault is a crime against a person.

In Re Peterson's Estate

12 Wash. 2d 686 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1942

His position as the real proponent of the final report had already been clearly established; he had been afforded a full opportunity to explain and defend his acts; and he will therefore not now be heard to assert a purely … technical claim of immunity from the jurisdiction of the court.