Case law

State v. Parker

139 Wash. 2d 486 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1999

Ed. 210 (1948) (a person does not, “by mere presence in a suspected car, lose[ ] immunities from search of his person to which he would otherwise be entitled.”). … Therefore, no Gunwall analysis is needed in this case because we apply established principles of state constitutional jurisprudence. See White, 135 Wn.2d at 769 .

Ekman v. United Film Service, Inc.

53 Wash. 2d 652 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1959

Nor did this contract deprive the privilege of engaging in that vocation and work for which he was trained and which he was qualified to perform. … Respondent failed to establish that he had fulfilled the conditions of the contract which granted to him the reserve commissions.

Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington

166 Wash. 2d 27 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2009

is instructive as to practices that, while not specifically prohibited by the CAA, are so much like the proscribed conduct that they fall within the broader scope of the CPA. [12] This is not a case where the legislature clearly … A plaintiff must establish each element to bring a successful CPA claim.

Port of Seattle v. Equitable Capital Group, Inc.

127 Wash. 2d 202 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1995

Because of this rationale no inquiry into knowledge is required to qualify the owner, although knowledge will affect the weight to be accorded his opinion. ... … That testimony of value was clearly in violation of the principle enunciated by this court in State v.

Kiser v. Douglas County

41 L.R.A.N.S. 1066 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1912

Archibald, supra, the prescriptive right of the public to patronize public wells is recognized and clearly discussed by Lord Blackburn. … They say: *248 “The title of the former owner is not extinguished; but is so qualified that it can only be enjoyed subject to that easement.

Goodwin v. American Surety Co. of New York

190 Wash. 457 · Washington Supreme Court · May 25, 1937

On November 23, 1921, which was a year after his wife’s death, Goodwin was appointed, and qualified, as guardian of the person and estate of his son, the plaintiff. … What became of the rest of the money so deposited does not clearly appear from the record, but, as we read the evidence, it is fairly inferable that at least a part of it was applied on the unsecured indebtedness owing to

State v. Zwicker

105 Wash. 2d 228 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1986

The City has no affirmative duty to establish that the defendant was afforded an opportunity to prove his sobriety. … The refusal is relevant under circumstances where it can qualify or disprove contentions raised by the defendant. See State v. Demos, 94 Wn.2d 733 , 619 P.2d 968 (1980).

State ex rel. Webster v. Superior Court

67 Wash. 37 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1912

There is no absolute right to do as one wills, pursue any calling one desires, or contract as one chooses . . . liberty means absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity *41 from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed … But for the very reason that such a contract has the effect of extinguishing pro tanto an undoubted power of government, • both its existence and the authority to make it must clearly and unmistakably appear, and all doubts

Associated Grocers, Inc. v. State

114 Wash. 2d 182 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1990

The exemption, which applies only to distributors, violates Associated's rights under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the … I would find the Legislature intended to establish two classes of taxpayers under RCW 82.04.270.

State v. Pugh

225 P.3d 892 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 2009

The statements qualify as res gestae under the res gestae doctrine as it applied at the time the state constitution was adopted. Statements of this type do not implicate the state confrontation clause. … Id. at 827 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 . ¶ 76 The standard established in Davis is clearly based on objective criteria. Id. at 822, 827 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 .

Weisfield v. City of Seattle

180 Wash. 288 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1935

“(c) Said ordinance has never been submitted to the qualified electors of the City of Seattle as required by law. … Every ordinance shall be clearly entitled and shall contain but one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title.’ ” The city answered the complaint by appropriate general denials.

NATIONAL ELEC. CONTRACTORS v. Riveland

978 P.2d 481 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1999

Rather than the open-ended authority DOC argues for, the Legislature has clearly placed limits on the department's use of inmate labor. … Plaintiffs will clearly benefit from said work and therefore have standing to pursue this action against DOC. Clerk's Papers at 1053.

Grant v. Spellman

99 Wash. 2d 815 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1983

When interpreting a statute, every presumption favors the validity of an act of the Legislature, all doubts must be resolved in support of the act, and it will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly appears to … In a complex society ... those who seek immunity ... on religious grounds must at the very least demonstrate adherence to ethical standards and a spiritual discipline. (Italics mine.) Kuch , at 443-44.

Malland v. Department of Retirement Systems

103 Wash. 2d 484 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1985

The trial judge affirmed, ruling that the State Board's order was neither "arbitrary and capricious" nor "clearly erroneous". … He would thus qualify again for disability retirement. I am mystified by the majority's reference at page 490 to nonapplication of collateral estoppel to the disability award itself.

Ohlson v. Sawbridge

156 Wash. 430 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1930

Appellant also attempted, by the oral testimony of witnesses who were present at these meetings, to establish what had been done. Objections to this testimony were also sustained. … Perry, 152 Wash. 5 , 277 Pac. 81 ; but we think *438 a simple comparison shows that this instruction clearly avoids the evils pointed out in the Perry case.

State ex rel. Troy v. Martin

38 Wash. 2d 501 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1951

$40,000,000 of public school building general obligation bonds purported-to have been authorized by Laws of 1949, chapter 229, p. .857, and subsequently ratified by the adoption of referendum bill No. 7 by a majority of the qualified … If a reasonable doubt appears, it should be resolved in favor of the validity of the law, the presumption being ‘that the statute in question is constitutional,’ and the burden rests upon the attacking party to clearly establish

City of Port Angeles v. Our Water-Our Choice!

170 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2010

The majority asserts the initiatives here 9 are administrative because the city of Port Angeles (the City) implemented its water fluoridation program pursuant to an existing regulatory system established by the Washington … RCW 35A. 11.080 provides, “The qualified electors or legislative body of a noncharter code city may provide for the exercise in their city of the powers of initiative and referendum . . . .”

In re The Estate of Sullivan

48 Wash. 631 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1908

Farrell was duly appointed and qualified as administrator of the estate of said Johanna Callaghan, and that he is now such administrator. … We think the identity of this Peter Sullivan with that of John Sullivan’s father is not established.

Heggen v. City of Seattle

47 Wash. 2d 576 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1955

Well, it is — I will have to qualify that to some extent in that the crack could develop anywhere. It might be visible. It might not. … Instruction No. 15, coming between them, when read in context was clearly intended to refer to the same situation, and not to the following bus.

State v. Mays

65 Wash. 2d 58 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1964

First, the granting or denial of a continuance, a recess, or a postponement rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and error cannot be predicated thereon unless the trial court clearly abuses its discretion. … Any qualified expert in the field of psychiatry could have been called by appellant for this purpose on surrebuttal.