Case law

Hoscheid v. Bartholet

78 Wash. 309 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1914

Matthias Bartholet was appointed executor and qualified as such. … Anything going to the validity of the will as of that date is clearly a proper subject to be raised by a contest of the probate.

Davis v. Cox

183 Wash. 2d 269 · Washington Supreme Court · May 28, 2015

This initial statute grants speakers immunity from claims based on the speaker’s communication to a governmental entity regarding any matter reasonably of concern to the governmental entity. See RCW 4.24.510. … On this disputed material fact, when the superior court resolved the anti-SLAPP motion, it weighed the evidence and found the defendants’ “evidence clearly shows that the Israel boycott and divestment movement is a national

State Ex Rel. Mason v. Board of County Commissioners

146 Wash. 449 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1928

And further, that: “No person shall be eligible to hold the office of port commissioner unless he is a qualified voter, and freeholder within such port district, and is and has been a resident for a period of three (3) years … The basis of those decisions is that, where it clearly appears that the county commissioners refuse to perform an official duty and that, by such refusal, the purpose of the law will be defeated, mandamus may be resorted

In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kaiser

111 Wash. 2d 275 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1988

Judge Kaiser claims that Mortal's standard applies to conduct, not speech, and that a higher standard therefore immunizes his statements. … Here, however, the subject of the disciplinary hearings is clearly speech. Judge Kaiser's conduct — leaflet-ting etc. — is incidental to that speech.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raynor

21 P.3d 707 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 2001

Allstate brought this separate declaratory judgment action to establish that the wrongful deaths and personal injuries were not covered under the Kings' Deluxe Homeowners Policy. … Van Riper, 1 Wash.2d at 642 , 96 P.2d 588 . [8] Milton's actions were clearly no less serious or criminal than Peasley's actions. Cf.

Barrington v. Murry

35 Wash. 2d 744 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1950

The evidence and the findings clearly indicate that appellant and Garrison was engaged in a partnership or a joint venture. … “It is, of course, unnecessary that every member of a partnership must be able and qualified to do every act required to further its general purpose.

Story v. Anderson

91 Wash. 2d 667 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1979

Four residency districts of disparate sizes were established for county commission elections. However, again, elections were county wide. … Primary elections are clearly sufficiently fraught with state action to invoke constitutional guaranties, and "the same tests to determine the character of discrimination or abridgement should be applied to the primary as

Reeder v. Crewes

199 Wash. 40 · Washington Supreme Court · May 5, 1939

This amendment, however, did not re-establish in favor of the injured workman any common law right, but simply enlarged his existing statutory right.” In a second case on appeal of Denning v. … This court held that, despite general compliance with the act by the company, it still was not entitled to immunity from liability for negligently injuring the employe of another employer because, at the time of the accident

State v. Piatnitsky

Washington Supreme Court · May 8, 2014

It is well established that Miranda rights must be invoked unambiguously. Davis, 512 U.S. at 459; Radcliffe, 164 Wn.2d at 906. … The third contextual clue is more relevant; it is true, as the Court of Appeals points out, that Piatnitsky qualified his refusal.

State v. A.M.W.

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2025

Thus, under controlling precedent, JuCR 7.16 is clearly procedural in nature. … Noah held a search warrant qualified as “legal process” under the statute. 150 Wash. at 292.

State v. Reed

56 Wash. 2d 668 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1960

The weight to be given to it was for the jury to determine, but the *674 statement was clearly admissible as pertinent to the issue created by appellant’s plea of not guilty. … He was qualified as a fingerprint expert. He identified an enlargement of appellant’s left thumbprint made under his supervision from the card mentioned above. This was admitted in evidence without objection.

Cantrill v. American Mail Line, Ltd.

42 Wash. 2d 590 · Washington Supreme Court · May 8, 1953

The court, in holding the ship’s operator liable, said: “This delay of 22 days to stow the hawser is clearly -negligent management of the vessel’s equipment. … United Fisheries Vessels Co., 141 F. (2d) 288, to support its position that assumption of risk is precluded only where the negligence of the employer is established as the cause of the injury, and that an employee assumes

Mount Adams School Dist. v. Cook

81 P.3d 111 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

In addition, the agreement establishes a four-step procedure for determining the merits of a grievance brought through the MAEA, which also provides for arbitration. … Here the MAEA and the District have clearly and unmistakably agreed to allow an arbitrator to decide whether a grievance is arbitrable.

State v. Radan

21 P.3d 255 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 22, 2001

State argues, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the statute is not ambiguous and that because Radan's automatic restoration of rights was not based on a "finding of rehabilitation" or a "finding of innocence" it cannot qualify … Pagan, 721 F.2d 24, 30 (2d Cir.1983) ("certificate setting aside a youthful offender's conviction and unconditionally discharging him from further probation prior to expiration of the maximum term of probation clearly implies

McGilcudy v. Seattle-First National Bank

55 Wash. 2d 250 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1959

On December 11, 1952, upon appellant’s petition, the will was admitted to probate in the superior court for Grays Harbor county, and appellant qualified to act as executor. … At this hearing, the court also permitted respondent to testify regarding events which occurred before appellant was appointed and had qualified as executor.

ESTATE OF BUNCH v. McGRAW RESIDENTIAL CTR.

174 Wash. 2d 425 · Washington Supreme Court · May 3, 2012

Kozel was clearly subject to service of process, and her joinder would not deprive the court of jurisdiction. … establishes that Kozel met this standard.

Tennant v. F. C. Whitney & Sons

133 Wash. 581 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1925

Recurring to the language of the article, particularly to the words italicized by us in the above quotation thereof, it seems to us that its *588 language would be readily understood by anyone reading it as clearly imputing … The theory upon which appellant requested this instruction was that, inasmuch as the court told the jury that the burden was upon appellants to establish their plea of justification that respondent had possession of the intoxicating

McCarty v. King County Medical Service Corp.

26 Wash. 2d 660 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1946

If special privileges or immunities are to be reserved to it which would exempt it from the plain obligations of its contract, the legislature should be importuned, not the courts. *686 This brings us to the appeal of Seattle … Clearly, the issues presented in that case did not bring the court to the point where it was faced with the duty of construing the two contracts which are before us in the present case.

Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Company

102 Wash. 2d 219 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1984

While an employer need not establish personnel policies or practices, where an employer chooses to establish such policies and practices and makes them known to its employees, the employment relationship is presumably enhanced … Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy.

Davis v. Harrison

25 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1946

Two hundred eighty-five thousand shares, less a qualifying share to each of the others, and one hundred fifty shares to Neva Appleton, were issued to C. L. Harrison. … M. was not qualified to do business in Alaska. The following year, the directors agreed with J. M.