Case law

Carbery v. Fidelity Savings & Loan Ass'n

32 Wash. 2d 391 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1949

The record does not clearly disclose the physical construction of the elevator and the means of exit therefrom. . The evidence was in dispute. Mrs. … In the case at bar, the issues were clearly presented by the pleadings and by the evidence.

State v. Otton

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2016

In order to effectuate the purposes of stare decisis, this court will reject its prior holdings only upon "a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful." ld. … Otton thus fails to show that Smith is clearly incorrect. 2.

Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!

239 P.3d 589 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2010

The parties agreed to allow the auditor to count the signatures, and the auditor found that enough had been gathered to qualify the initiatives for the ballot. … States are permitted to provide greater protection than the minimums established by the SDWA. 42 U.S.C. § 300g-2(a)(1).

Seattle-First National Bank v. Washington Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

116 Wash. 2d 398 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1991

WIGA also relies on expert opinion to establish residual value insurance as surety insurance. … issue in Deshotels was whether the claim involved was ocean marine insurance, which was excluded from guaranty association coverage. 26 At issue in Zinke-Smith was whether an unpaid claim was reinsurance which cannot *413 qualify

Adler v. Adler

52 Wash. 539 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1909

Ellenborough been as established by the statute, the will in question in Kenebal v. … Our conclusion then is that the words “or unless she be provided for in the will,” being in the disjunctive and in no way qualified by the usual term “in contemplation of marriage,” refer to a condition existing at the time

Lawyers Title Insurance v. Baik

147 Wash. 2d 536 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2002

First, where a party is peculiarly qualified, by experience and expert knowledge, to evaluate the truth or falsity of a representation, the party has no right to rely on such statements. Beckendorf v. … Relying on clearly established Washington precedent, the Court of Appeals properly concluded that Lawyers Title’s reliance on Chae’s letter as a guaranty of no ultimate tax liability was not justified because it “failed to

State v. Cross

132 P.3d 80 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2006

But even from the cold record, the trial court had good reason to find that Juror 30 was not death qualified. … However, an Ohio statute immunized witness testimony, meaning self-incrimination was not possible as a matter of law.

Wick v. Western Union Life Insurance

104 Wash. 129 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1918

It has been engaged in business for a number of years, has a large and well established business, being well known in Spokane and throughout the state. … In addition, the rule for the construction of contracts first mentioned is qualified or extended in such way that the intention of the parties is to be gathered, not from detached parts of the instrument, but from the whole

Voters Education Committee v. Public Disclosure Commission

161 Wash. 2d 470 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2007

However, Bare does not establish binding precedent here. … However, VEC fails to justify how it qualifies as a “political organization” but not a “political committee.”

State v. Immelt

173 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2011

Immelt’s particular horn honking, the majority concludes that a range of hypothetical horn honking qualifies as symbolic speech that is regulated by the ordinance, and therefore an overbreadth analysis is proper. … Immelt’s conduct is clearly proscribed. ¶63 She also raises an as-applied challenge. However, her conduct falls squarely within the ordinance’s prohibition, as explained.

Department of Ecology v. Acquavella

177 Wash. 2d 299 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2013

The qualifying Northside parties may hold the right regardless of whether it will be fulfilled. ¶77 We affirm, as a general proposition, the trial court’s ruling granting qualifying Northside parties a right to use excess … The trial court properly denied qualifying Northside users a right to use excess water after July 10 ¶78 The trial court denied qualifying Northside users the right to use excess water after July 10.

In Re the Welfare of Snyder

85 Wash. 2d 182 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1975

This child has established a pattern of refusing to obey her parents and, on two occasions, has, in effect, fled her home by filing petitions in the Juvenile Court in order that she might be made a ward of the court. … Furthermore, we have not deviated from the rule that when an interested party testifies, the rate at which that evidence is discounted, if a all, should be determined by the trial judge, who is far better qualified to make

Caminiti v. Boyle

107 Wash. 2d 662 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 12, 1987

It is this principle which is *670 referred to as the "public trust doctrine". 18 Although not always clearly labeled or articulated as such, our review of Washington law establishes that the doctrine has always existed in … The Fourteenth Amendment and the state privileges and immunities clause, Const, art. 1, § 12, contain substantially identical protections in this regard. 41 In this connection, petitioners contend that the statute impinges

State v. Roberts

142 Wash. 2d 471 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 14, 2000

of an establishment where he was known. … This rule has been applied when the evidence clearly establishes that the murder was committed in the course of a felony that would serve as a predicate for a charge of felony murder in the first degree.

In re Recall of Clouse

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 26, 2026

“To establish legal sufficiency, petitioners must identify the ‘standard, law, or rule that would make the officer’s conduct wrongful, improper, or unlawful.’” … Clouse may have chosen to employ the individual: the position already existed and was open, Clouse was looking for someone she already knew could perform the job duties, there are no allegations this individual was not qualified

In re the Personal Restraint of Stenson

150 Wash. 2d 207 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 11, 2003

Grubb has not been sufficiently qualified yet as an expert in interpretation of blood stain evidence at a crime scene.” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Aug. 1, 1994) at 1243. … Clearly, the State cannot be required, at the time of trial, to disclose information that has yet to come into existence (the three cases mentioned above were decided after Stenson’s trial).

Horton v. Board of Education of Methodist Protestant Church

32 Wash. 2d 99 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1948

In due course, all of the trustees duly qualified and acted as such, but all of them, excepting plaintiff, are deceased, and plaintiff is now the duly appointed, qualified, and acting sole surviving trustee under the will … In the last-cited case, the general rules relative, to the cy pres doctrine, with which we are here in accord, are set out very clearly and at some length.

Treffry v. Taylor

67 Wash. 2d 487 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1965

If his business required that he register, he would then reasonably seek further information from the act to determine whether he qualified for a certificate of registration. … To me, the meanings of the two words are clearly different.

Tegman v. Accident & Medical Investigations

75 P.3d 497 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2003

Nor are the negligent defendants jointly and severally liable under RCW 4.22.030 for any such damages because their liability clearly is determined under RCW 4.22.070. … Some state legislatures have established such a system.

Winston v. Bacon

8 Wash. 2d 216 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1941

The fact that respondent did not see the Johnson car sooner *224 than he did is clearly insufficient, in itself, to establish negligence on respondent’s part.' … In the absence of such testimony, we do not feel qualified to express any opinion upon the validity of the argument advanced.