Case law

Nat. Bank of Commerce of Seattle v. Dunn

194 Wash. 472 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1938

for, and is ready for occupancy in accordance with this lease, then the Cline Piano Company may assign this lease to the Cline Building Company, provided said Cline Building Company is duly organized as a corporation and qualified … That the parties well knew how to state such a covenant, clearly appears, as the lessee covenanted to pay taxes, to repay money paid by the lessor on account of liens or charges established against her interest, and to do

State v. Russell

125 Wash. 2d 24 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 13, 1994

In fact, the missing middle section of the majority’s quote, majority, at 46, from pages 145-46 of the report clearly discusses RFLP analysis. … The Frye hearing demonstrated a real controversy among qualified scientists.

Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

112 Wash. 2d 216 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1989

The defendants clearly were not entitled to summary judgment, because they did not succeed in establishing that there was no issue of material fact left for the jury to resolve. … The majority clearly errs in holding Dotson's affidavit insufficient on the sole ground that she is a pharmacist.

Alcoa v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

998 P.2d 856 · Washington Supreme Court · May 4, 2000

Thus, while it is true Alcoa cannot not have "title" to the groundwater in either Washington or New York, it clearly has an interest in groundwater that can be enforced at law, i.e., its license to withdraw the groundwater … Out of 85 total subareas at the three test sites, the jury was unable to establish Alcoa's knowledge for 33 of them.

Estate of Ackerley v. Dep't of Revenue

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2017

While the 2005 act established a stand-alone estate tax, the tax was still tied to a large extent to the federal estate tax code. … Ackerley's gift tax payments, fully and finally made during his life, do not qualify as transfers made at death. As a result, I would reverse the decision of the Thurston County Superior Court.

Blue Sky Advocates v. State

107 Wash. 2d 112 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1986

Blue sky claims that this statute establishes both a duty and a standard of care which make the Attorney General liable to Blue Sky in malpractice. … Protection of the State's environment, like protection of the State's funds, would qualify as protection of an important public policy.

In Re Estate of O'Brien

109 Wash. 2d 913 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1988

To constitute a delivery "it must be clearly apparent that the grantor intended that the deed should presently pass title." Juel, at 437. … By characterizing these provisions as nontestamentary, they are immune from invalidation due to noncompliance with the statute of wills, RCW 11.12.020.

State v. Kwan Fai Mak

105 Wash. 2d 692 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1986

II Additionally, the majority concludes that the statement by the third party to Benjamin Ng, which would have established the necessary foundation for appellant Mak's offer of proof, is hearsay. … Thus, the statement was made in furtherance of a criminal act and qualifies as an admission against penal interest within the holding set by Barrett and cited with approval in Parris .

Aluminum Co. of America v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

140 Wash. 2d 517 · Washington Supreme Court · May 4, 2000

Thus, while it is true Alcoa cannot have “title” to the groundwater in either Washington or New York, it clearly has an interest in groundwater that can be enforced at law, i.e., its license to withdraw the groundwater for … Out of 85 total subareas at the three test sites, the jury was unable to establish Alcoa’s knowledge for 33 of them.

Kennewick Irrigation District v. Benton County

179 Wash. 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1934

Appellants contend that the legislative intent to preserve the lien of general taxes levied prior to the date the irrigation district acquired title to the property is clearly manifested in Rem. Rev. … They made no effort to destroy the presumption of the deed’s validity by establishing the fact that one of the essential steps was not taken.

Dickgieser v. State

153 Wash. 2d 530 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 27, 2005

We held that securing housing for a segment of society might be a public benefit but it did not qualify as a public use since members of the public would be excluded from the park, which would be privately owned by the residents … Clearly, an adequate approach way is as necessary a part of an airport as is the ground on which the airstrip, itself, is constructed, if the private airspace of adjacent landowners is not to be invaded by airplanes using

State v. Copeland

922 P.2d 1304 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1996

Other testimony by Henry was clearly in response to new matters. … Copeland does not argue that the length of the sentence is clearly excessive, if an exceptional sentence is warranted.

In Re Johnson's Estate

20 Wash. 2d 628 · Washington Supreme Court · May 15, 1944

By his will he established a trust fund of twelve thousand dollars for the benefit of his brother, George W. … One thoroughly qualified physician testified, in answer to hypothetical questions, that in his opinion Mr.

Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc.

164 Wash. 2d 432 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 4, 2008

When Fluor waived its right to challenge the “jeopardy” element, the following was true: this court had established in Hubbard v. … It cannot now claim that a change in the law excuses its waiver. 3 We hold *444 that Fluor waived its right to contest the “jeopardy” element and that it does not qualify for an exception to that waiver.

Bering v. Share

106 Wash. 2d 212 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1986

Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. Hague v. Committee for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 515 , 83 L. … Although these findings are supported by the record, the record also clearly demonstrates that such incidents have been isolated and infrequent in occurrence.

Carkonen v. Williams

76 Wash. 2d 617 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 4, 1969

The budget allocated to the King County Assessor permitted him to retain only 81 qualified appraisers while the Snohomish County Assessor was allowed only 26. … But we are unable to conclude that the evidence suffices clearly to establish that the State Board entertained or is chargeable with any purpose or design to discriminate.

Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I

23 P.3d 440 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 17, 2001

A prima facie case of racial discrimination, for instance, is generally established "by showing (i) that [the plaintiff] belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he [or she] applied and was qualified for a job for which the … The qualifying adverb—"generally"—reflects an understanding that such would not be true in every case.

Heavens v. KING CTY. RURAL LIBR. DIST.

66 Wash. 2d 558 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1965

On the one end of the span are the clearly permissible uses of special assessments to cover the cost of installing roads, sewers, et cetera. There is no argument that those improvements add value to the adjacent land. … I am convinced that any qualified appraiser of urban real estate, if asked whether an attractively constructed library facility would add appreciably to the market value of the reasonably adjacent real estate, would most

Starr v. Jim

52 Wash. 138 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1909

They are not qualified to cope with the white race, and the result of this decision, should it be sustained in the higher courts, will no doubt be prejudicial to their best interests. … It seems to us that there can be no question that the Moses agreement and these several acts of Congress clearly evince the long-established policy of the government to retain a guardianship over these Indians and to hold

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schafer

149 Wash. 2d 148 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2003

We conclude that Hamilton’s statements to Schafer qualify as a “confidence” or “secret” under RPC 1.6. … When Hamilton hired Schafer to represent him in that transaction, an attorney-client relationship was established between the two parties again.