Case law

Milkey v. Cross

23 Wash. 2d 699 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1945

Katharine Cross, and did she clearly understand that, and she said, yes, she did, and that is the way she wanted it.” Mr. … Adams forgot the matter, is clearly established by the evidence. Respondent’s physician witness testified that Mrs. Adams was in an advanced stage of senile dementia at the time of her death.

Deggs v. Asbestos Corp.

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2016

;)ason to attribute spousal immunity to the wife's personal representative, and allowed the wrongful death suit to go forward. !d. at 424-25. … Generally, this court will not overturn precedent unless there has been "a clear showing that an established rule is incorrect and harmful."

State v. Sullivan

143 Wash. 2d 162 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 8, 2001

Knapstad, 32 claiming the State could not establish a prima facie case of barratry against him. … Petitioner asserts that Respondent’s demand was somewhat similar to a summons, which would qualify as “judicial process.” 66 The “Demand for Particulars” had a caption indicating a court and named parties, directed the recipient

Himes v. MacIntyre-Himes

136 Wash. 2d 707 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1998

The distribution of property in such an action is incidental, and it is clearly incontestable that upon the death of either party, whether before or after the decree, the subject of the controversy is eliminated. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or properly, without due process of law; nor

In Re Detention of Martin

182 P.3d 951 · Washington Supreme Court · May 1, 2008

For example, an omission simultaneously qualifying a person for confinement and release is meaningless. Id. at 730, 649 P.2d 633 . … Certainly naming a specific prosecutor as the filing authority establishes venue; however, venue does not supersede the expression of authority.

Hermanson v. Multicare Health Sys., Inc.

196 Wash. 2d 578 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 12, 2020

However, the trial court held Hermanson’s nurses qualified under the corporate attorney-client privilege because they are MultiCare employees. … (Stephens, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), 97783-6 that fails to establish how Dr.

Kammerer v. Western Gear Corp.

96 Wash. 2d 416 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1981

I therefore must dissent from the majority's unnecessary inroad into this well established and previously consistent rule. … Amorphous, general concepts voiced by other courts, oftentimes clearly result oriented, do not make this task any easier.

State v. T.J.S.-M.

Washington Supreme Court · May 30, 2019

If appealed, a manifest injustice disposition must be supported by the record, those reasons must clearly and convincingly support a disposition outside the standard range, and the sentence imposed must not be clearly too … "Clear and convincing evidence" "is a quantum of proof that is more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than what is needed to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

In Re Marriage of Himes

965 P.2d 1087 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1998

The distribution of property in such an action is incidental, and it is clearly incontestable that upon the death of either party, whether before or after the decree, the subject of the controversy is eliminated. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

Wash. Local Etc. v. Internat'l Etc.

28 Wash. 2d 536 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1947

"I find that the affirmative defenses of the defendants, other than Joe Clancy, have been clearly established by a preponderance of the evidence. … "(c) Where there is an inconsistency between general provisions and specific provisions, the specific provisions ordinarily qualify the meaning of the general provisions."

In Re Mitchell's Estate

41 Wash. 2d 326 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1952

The evidence conclusively established also that the conveyance to C. B. Mitchell was largely, if not entirely, a gift. … This statement should perhaps be qualified: it is generally innocuous so long as it is not complied with.

Davis v. Cox

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 … 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

Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston County

423 P.3d 223 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 9, 2018

The right to an impartial decision-maker is clearly a right "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." … We agree that prelitigation, administrative fora attorney fees may qualify as damages in certain types of abuse of process cases.

State Ex Rel. Gallwey v. Grimm

48 P.3d 274 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2002

The Missouri Supreme Court agreed, holding "those schools statutorily qualified would not be subjected to that `control' prohibited by Article IX, § 8, of the Missouri Constitution. … The students must meet the qualifying criteria before receiving grant moneys.

Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co.

45 P.3d 1068 · Washington Supreme Court · May 9, 2002

Allstate asserts, however, that the trial court failed to consider that Klein's conduct fit within an exception established in Perkins v. … The Joneses deposition testimony tends to show that they clearly knew this to be the case.

Whiting v. Rubinstein

10 Wash. 2d 5 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1941

Application was made May 19,1939, for appointment of plaintiff, who qualified as such receiver June 7, 1939, as receiver for Suryan’s, Inc., a domestic corporation. … This would clearly have been a preference.

State v. LG Elecs., Inc.

Washington Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2016

Here, although consumers may benefit from restitution, the legislature clearly intended for the attorney general's enforcement under .080 to benefit the public generally. … In considering state claims brought for violations of the Sherman Act, post- Frito-Lay, the Ninth Circuit concluded it is well established [t]hat a state as parens patriae may sue to redress a violation

Zinn v. Equitable Life Insurance

6 Wash. 2d 379 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1940

An autopsy was performed by five well-qualified pathologists of the city of Seattle. … The authorities reflect two clearly defined lines of thought upon this question.

State v. Parker

987 P.2d 73 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 2, 2001

Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 587 , 68 S.Ct. 222 , 92 L.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."). … In determining whether an item within a vehicle is "clearly and closely" associated with a nonarrested passenger, we adopt the test recently annunciated by the Wyoming Supreme Court in Houghton v.

State v. Richardson

197 Wash. 157 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1938

Richardson’s death clearly show that some person killed her. There was sufficient evidence to justify the court in denying appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of the state’s case. … The witness qualified as an expert, and it seems to be the rule that an expert may, after describing the nature of a wound, give such opinion as was here given. Shaughnessy v. Holt, 236 Ill. 485 , 86 N. E. 256 , 21 L.