Case law

State v. Rabe

79 Wash. 2d 254 · Washington Supreme Court · May 6, 1971

Admittedly aimed at appealing to "a clearly defined deviant sexual group, rather than the public at large," the court interpreted Roth to support the suppression of materials directed at "the sexual interests of its intended … Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 , 12 L.Ed.2d 793 , 84 S.Ct. 1676 (1964)), is not and should not be granted immunity from community and moral standards and state law except where to deny such immunity amounts to a deprivation of freedom

Boeing Airplane Co. v. Commissioner of the Employment Security Department

39 Wash. 2d 356 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1951

To unduly restrict the operations of administrative bureaus would defeat the very purpose for which they have been established.” In Morgan v. … adopted by the majority when it states, “It is undoubtedly true that an employee might be justified in voluntarily terminating his employment, if called upon to work for substantially reduced wages . . . ” But, who is best qualified

Gunnier v. Yakima Heart Center, Inc.

134 Wash. 2d 854 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1998

Nicholas Jerns Co., 86 Wn.2d 215, 219 , 543 P2d 338 (1975), the court said that “[u]ntil a plaintiff suffers appreciable harm as a consequence of negligence, he cannot establish a cause of action.” … This language clearly does not provide *860 that the limitations period commences with accrual of a cause of action.

State v. Yokley

139 Wash. 2d 581 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1999

Pursuant to RCW 70.77.126 and 70.77.236, in order for an explosive device to qualify as a “firework” it must have been classified by the appropriate federal or state government officials. … The affiant’s failure to specifically state that Donald Yokley did not possess an explosives license, when one can easily draw this inference from the affidavit, clearly falls within the category of “negligence” or “innocent

Sane Transit v. Sound Transit

151 Wash. 2d 60 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2004

. *94 clearly identify the proposition to be voted on.’ ” Majority at 71 (quoting RCW 29.79.035(1)). … Though a corollary to the last antecedent rule provides “the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply *98 to all antecedents instead of only the immediately preceding

Wash. Trucking Ass'ns v. Emp't Sec. Dep't

Washington Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2017

immunity under section 1983. 7 66 F .3d at 1125. … "If the undefined statutory term is not technical, the court may refer to the dictionary to establish the meaning of the word." Id. at 423.

Washington Water Jet Workers Ass'n v. Yarbrough

148 Wash. 2d 403 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2003

Demands were made to appoint a qualified warden in place of Billings’ hired superintendent. They appropriated $600 per year for such an official. … The Utah Supreme Court clearly understood “contracting” to mean the contract system of convict labor.

Holt v. Holt

179 Wash. 2d 224 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2013

. *266 ¶98 Such restrictions on who may qualify for domestic partnership might lead to results perceived to be unfair or arbitrary. … Thus, for purposes of our opinion, the notarized agreements among the parties were established facts.

Kramarevcky v. Department of Social & Health Services

122 Wash. 2d 738 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1993

The facts in West clearly render the case inapplicable in this instance. See Harbor Air Serv., Inc. v. … The majority's holding that substantive eligibility is not a requirement for establishing the injury element of estoppel is, thus, clearly incorrect when a party is asserting estoppel against the government.

Carstens Packing Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.

58 Wash. 239 · Washington Supreme Court · May 3, 1910

Clearly, its enactment was prompted by a concern for the public welfare. … But both these elementary principles are subordinate to and qualified by the doctrine that neither by comity nor by the will of contracting parties can the public policy of a country be set at naught.

Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council

165 Wash. 2d 275 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2008

EFSLA instructs that the definitions section applies throughout the statute “unless the context clearly requires otherwise.” RCW 80.50.020. … That section clearly indicates that locating turbines at greater distances from viewers reduces visual impact of those turbines.

Pasco Police Officers' Ass'n v. City of Pasco

132 Wash. 2d 450 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1997

established by the city; 3. … PERC was clearly correct in its analysis.

Cooper's Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Simmons

94 Wash. 2d 321 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1980

The term does not have such an established meaning consistent with only one characterization of a particular item. … For instance, in this case the legislative purpose clearly appears from the following analysis.

Haley v. Highland

142 Wash. 2d 135 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 2, 2000

Keene, 131 Wash.2d at 834-35 , 935 P.2d 588 . deElche and Keene firmly ensconced in this area of law the principle that "`absent express statutory provision, or compelling public policy, the law should not immunize tortfeasors … A slightly different regime is established for tort obligations.

Diamond Parking, Inc. v. City of Seattle

78 Wash. 2d 778 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1971

unless there is maintained at or near the entrance of said garage a sign designating each rate to be charged for such parking or keeping and the hours applicable thereto and the name of the licensee and such sign shall be clearly … The court’s opinion will allow the surviving corporate entity to enter a licensed field of activity without applying and qualifying for a license, for under the aegis of the Uniform Business Corporation Act it may achieve

State ex rel. T.B. v. CPC Fairfax Hospital

129 Wash. 2d 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1996

to establish guidelines beneficial to and protective of their children. … The legislature further finds that *462 it is the right and responsibility of adults to establish laws for the benefit and protection of the society; and that, in the same manner, the right and responsibility for establishing

State v. Reader's Digest Ass'n

81 Wash. 2d 259 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 28, 1972

In order to qualify, however, the addressee *262 must respond. He may return a “yes” form, by which he agrees to purchase advertised goods and enter the drawing, or a “no” form, by which he only enters the drawing. … In recent years there has been a clearly discernible trend to liberalize the requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over nonresidents.

HTK Management, L.L.C. v. Seattle Popular Monorail Authority

155 Wash. 2d 612 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 20, 2005

RCW 35.95A.050(1). 28 Our case law establishes that condemnation procedures may be fairly implied if necessary to effectuate the legislature’s intent. … The Transit Way Agreement between the City of Seattle and Monorail establishes conditions under which Monorail may use the city's rights-of-way. Fully quoted infra p. 646.

Henry Broderick, Inc. v. Baker

151 Wash. 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1929

It clearly appears from respondent’s testimony and from the instrument itself that the agreement was intended by respondent to be definite and complete, and that the same did not contemplate further negotiation between the … Duryee, called as a witness on the part of respondent, testified that appellant read the earnest money receipt when the same was presented to him on the morning of November 16, but, on cross-examination, qualified his testimony

In Re the Detention of Danforth

173 Wash. 2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2011

Danforth moved for summary judgment, arguing that his actions did not constitute a “recent overt act” to qualify him for commitment proceedings under former RCW 71.09-.020(10) (2006), recodified as RCW 71.09.020(12). … Ed. 2d 664 (1969) (holding that statutes that criminalize pure speech “must he interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind”).