Case law

State v. Black

109 Wash. 2d 336 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1987

Here, the question is whether rape trauma syndrome has been generally established as a scientifically reliable means of proving that a rape occurred. … Fischman, The Aftermath of Rape lb (1979) ("Clearly, the concept of a typical rape victim has no place within the context of postrape adjustment").

C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop

138 Wash. 2d 699 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1999

First Amendment concerns are clearly at issue. … The issue is not one of immunity. It is a matter of the constitutional right to religious freedom.

State v. Stubbs

240 P.3d 143 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2010

excessive or clearly too lenient. … Likewise, the loss of a leg, a "significant permanent loss . . . of the function of [a] bodily part," would qualify as "great bodily harm"; but so would paraplegia.

State Ex Rel. Wash. Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle

54 Wash. 2d 545 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1959

in connection with construction of a second Lake Washington toll bridge, at a site to be determined *549 by the toll bridge authority, or any subsequent refunding bond issues or for sinking, fund requirements or reserves established … We cannot see how this grant of continuing authority to pledge further moneys from the Motor Vehicle Fund can be said merely to “qualify” the one-hundred-thousand-dollar appropriation contained in sub-paragraph (1).

Washington Federation of State Employees v. State

101 Wash. 2d 536 · Washington Supreme Court · May 17, 1984

By inducing employees to remain in state employment, the State assures itself of a highly qualified, experienced pool of workers to fill its vacancies. … The majority's decision to abandon this distinction stems in large part from the fact that the Governor's veto here was clearly affirmative in nature.

Buchanan v. SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD.

76 Wash. 2d 100 · Washington Supreme Court · May 29, 1969

He has been with them for 10 years and we are quite sure you will find him qualified. We also have a very detailed estimate of repairs from C. M. Melburn Co. … In applying this rule, however, in varying factual situations we have not clearly drawn the line of distinction between the doctrines of waiver and estoppel as they relate to the actions and declarations of an independent

State Ex Rel. Swanson v. Perham

30 Wash. 2d 368 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1948

It has always been, and now is, a private corporation qualified to engage in buying, selling, handling, and otherwise dealing in fruits, vegetables, grain, and all kinds of agricultural, horticultural, and poultry products … It can alter or modify any right, privi *382 lege, or immunity granted by it.

Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents of University of Washington

72 Wash. 2d 912 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1967

the same principle, to the detriment of others whose rights will be controlled by the precedent established. … Clearly, the program set up by the state board of education and the local school board violated our constitutional prohibitions. Recently, the Supreme Court in Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54 , 19 L.

State Ex Rel. O'Connell v. Yelle

51 Wash. 2d 594 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1958

This clearly recognized a distinction between expenses and compensation as the latter word is used in the constitution. … I believe this language is broad enough to cover among other expenses those incurred by a state official in moving to and establishing residence at the seat of state government, and in re-establishing residence elsewhere

Development Services of America, Inc. v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 107 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1999

Ultimately the court’s legal choice is between a more restrictive or a less restrictive definition, as the word “necessary” clearly has different meanings. … City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 369, 378 , 739 P.2d 668 (1987), we qualified “such preference to property owners is only warranted to the extent ambiguity exists.”

Vogleson v. Cottin

31 Wash. 2d 823 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1948

Upon the filing of the petition, an ex parte order was entered granting special letters of administration to Vogleson, who qualified by filing his oath and bond. September 5, 1947, C. B. W. Raymond, attorney for Mr. … Gallinger, I remember very clearly, said ‘Here is the key- — •’ [Interpolation by counsel and court] Q.

Washington Independent Telephone Ass'n v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission

149 Wash. 2d 17 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2003

s motion to dismiss on the grounds that USCC was not a common carrier, the Commission granted USCC’s oral motion to amend its petition “to include the license holders of its Washington license areas as well as USCC when qualifying … To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it.

Scrivener v. Clark College

Washington Supreme Court · Sep 18, 2014

Our case law clearly establishes that it is the plaintiff's burden at trial to prove that discrimination was a substantial factor in an adverse employment action, not the only motivating factor. … It argued that the other candidates were clearly qualified and were the "best fit" for the college and department. These are vague descriptions.

State v. Medina

180 Wash. 2d 282 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2014

He spent a total of about nine months in CCAP Enhanced and about three years and nine months in CCAP Basic. 4 *286 ¶5 King County established CCAP under the auspices of former RCW 9.94A.380 (1988)/current RCW 9.94A.680. 5 … LEXIS 1122 , at *19 (“an offender must demonstrate that this partial confinement included at least eight hours per day in a ‘facility’ ” in order to qualify for time served in partial confinement).

State v. Reece

110 Wash. 2d 766 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1988

Nor is *774 there any merit to defendants' argument that sadomasochistic materials must be combined with depictions of ultimate sex acts in order to qualify as obscene. … The magazine in Reece clearly is "obscene" under that test.

Rains v. Department of Fisheries

89 Wash. 2d 740 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1978

In Evangelical, we held that the above statute did not bring within its reach all acts and omissions of government on the theory of continuing immunity for the truly discretionary acts of state officials, but liability was … I believe that all of these elements are established in the present case. Private property clearly was involved. Mr. Rains alleged that his land was injured in the amount of $119,000.

Unemployment Compensation Department v. Hunt

17 Wash. 2d 228 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1943

Such license is issued to an otherwise qualified applicant upon a showing that he has been appointed as agent by the principal to represent and act for him in negotiating or soliciting for the sale of leases or in taking … determination of the facts involved in a proceeding instituted pursuant to the act is conclusive on the courts, unless such determination is wholly without evidential support, or is wholly dependent upon a question of law, or is clearly

Agrilink Foods, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE

103 P.3d 1226 · 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.

PAC. NW CONF. OF FREE METHODIST CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA v. Barlow

77 Wash. 2d 487 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1969

However, the record shows clearly that the use, whether by the respondent or by others, was predominantly sectarian in character. … And if this exemption is valid, then what is to stop all other religious sects from establishing similar camps?

McCurdy v. Union Pacific Railroad

68 Wash. 2d 457 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1966

In addition, you may allow damages for the loss of use, if any, which you find established by the evidence. … Of course, the owner of a chattel may testify as to its market value without being qualified as an expert in this regard. Wicklund v. Allraum, 122 Wash. 546 , 211 Pac. *469 760 ; Ingersol v.