Case law

State Ex Rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle

56 Wash. 2d 86 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1960

The purpose was very clearly explained by the supreme court of Arizona in Bank of Lowell v. … This is a pledge of funds in a constitutional fund, established by the people of this State for the purpose for which the pledge is made.

In re Recall of Ruelas

565 P.3d 921 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2025

To be “legally sufficient,” a petition charge must “define substantial conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or a violation of the oath of office.” … That claim is legally insufficient because the recall proponents fail to establish that Ruelas secured “special privileges” for herself.

State v. Lupastean

Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2022

However, that decision addressed “a state statute qualifying only white people for jury duty.” Swain, 380 U.S. at 203. … As a result, “prosecutors’ peremptory challenges [were] largely immune from constitutional scrutiny.”

Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2017

With respect to funding, the Agreement establishes a mix of public and private support. … Abbott, 2008 ME 100, ~ 10, 952 A.2d 980 (employing identical test to determine whether an entity "qualifies as 'an agency or public official"' for purposes of state transparency law); Oriana House, Inc. v.

Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue

937 P.2d 154 · Washington Supreme Court · May 1, 1997

Commission on Adult Entertainment Establishments, 10 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir.1993) (upholding a statute establishing closing hours for adult entertainment establishments). E. … These restrictions are clearly not so tailored. Bellevue's ordinance fails the content neutrality test. B.

Riddle v. Elofson

439 P.3d 647 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2019

Riddle argues that securing $ 200,000 in addition to her original $ 200,000 bond would result in $ 400,000 in coverage-clearly in excess of the prescribed $ 250,000 "maximum amount" under RCW 36.16.050(3) and (8). ¶20 Riddle … IV, § 26 ; RCW 36.16.030 (county clerk is elected by the qualified voters of the county); RCW 2.32.050 (powers and duties of clerks). 7 ¶34 Riddle had a well-grounded fear based on the Judges' order informing her that she

People's Organization for Washington Energy Resources v. Utilities & Transportation Commission

104 Wash. 2d 798 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1985

The period involved here is clearly not what is intended to be a test period and insertion of these costs into this part of the formula does not serve as a guide to future expenses. … The heavy burden of establishing unreasonableness must be borne by the challenger. FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 602 , 88 L. Ed. 333 , 64 S. Ct. 281 (1944).

In re Dependency of Z.J.G.

Washington Supreme Court · Sep 3, 2020

This case satisfies each consideration for establishing an issue of continuing and substantial public interest. … While testimony of eligibility is not necessary to establish a “reason to know,” it is sufficient for a court to make such a finding.

City of Tacoma v. Tacoma Light & Water Co.

16 Wash. 288 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1897

“Fraud will not be presumed, and must be established by proof either direct or circumstantial. … This difference is clearly pointed out by Mr. Justice Brewer in Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. v.

State v. Elmore

139 Wash. 2d 250 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1999

It clearly states “the defendant committed the murder to conceal. . . the identity of the person committing a crime[.]” Clerk’s Eapers at 839. … The prosecutor’s comments, while clearly advocacy, simply do not rise to such level.

State v. Blank

930 P.2d 1213 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1997

A "`defendant's poverty in no way immunizes him from punishment.'" Curry, 118 Wash.2d at 918 n. 3, 829 P.2d 166 (quoting Bearden, 461 U.S. at 669 , 103 S.Ct. at 2071 ). … It is clearly procedural. See Mackey v. American Fashion Inst. Corp., 60 Wash.App. 426, 430 , 804 P.2d 642 (1991). State v.

In re Pers. Restraint of Hinton

Washington Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2023

Hinton has established prejudice A. … It also clearly explains how application of those controlling decisions to Hinton’s case shows that Hinton has established error.

Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kuvara

66 P.3d 1057 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2003

In 1982, he received a censure for twice suggesting to a client that she backdate a real estate deed in order to divest herself of ownership of the property so that she could qualify for welfare benefits. … Kuvara failed to establish any connection between his alcoholism and his misconduct or to demonstrate a meaningful period of recovery as required by the Standards.

State Ex Rel. Ausburn v. City of Seattle

190 Wash. 222 · Washington Supreme Court · May 3, 1937

.” *227 Article IV, § 18, subd. 40, of the charter of the city of Seattle, provides: “The city council shall have power by ordinance and not otherwise— “To ordain, establish, modify and abrogate from time to time, as the … W. 844 , cited by respondents to sustain their position that the charter power of suspension is qualified, is not apposite. It is distinguishable on the facts from the case at bar.

Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 24, 2013

They have not provided us with any specific argument as to why the development agreement does not qualify under RCW 36.70B.l70. At least on its face, the development agreement appears statutorily adequate. … Further, "[i]fthe parties to a contract clearly and unequivocally incorporate by reference into their contract some other document, that document becomes part of their contract." Satomi Owners Ass 'n v.

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kuvara

149 Wash. 2d 237 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2003

In 1982, he received a censure for twice suggesting to a client that she backdate a real estate deed in order to divest herself of ownership of the property so that she could qualify for welfare benefits. … Kuvara failed to establish any connection between his alcoholism and his misconduct or to demonstrate a meaningful period of recovery as required by the Standards.

State v. Bradley

141 Wash. 2d 731 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 28, 2000

It exalts the unlawful use of force by agents of the state at the expense of the victim, while immunizing the threat of excessive force. … Ed. 2d 69 (1999), in which a deficient jury instruction was upheld only because it was cured by another instruction which clearly allowed for self-defense where the person has a reasonable, but mistaken, belief in danger

Clean v. State

928 P.2d 1054 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1997

The burden should be on the one who asserts that the exemption is applicable since the constitional rule is clearly otherwise, and we presume that the act is subject to referendum unless the contrary is clearly proven. … To summarize the established rule, when the Legislature tacks on an emergency clause without telling what the emergency is, and judicially noticeable facts (see footnote 16, supra ) do not clearly support its presence, we

CLEAN v. State

130 Wash. 2d 782 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1996

The burden should be on the one who asserts that the exemption is applicable since the constitu- *835 tional rule is clearly otherwise, and we presume that the act is subject to referendum unless the contrary is clearly proven … To summarize the established rule, when the Legislature tacks on an emergency clause without telling what the emergency is, and judicially noticeable facts (see footnote 36, supra) do not clearly support its presence, we

Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King County

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 24, 2013

They have not provided us with any specific argument as to why the development agreement does not qualify under RCW 36.70B.l70. At least on its face, the development agreement appears statutorily adequate. … Further, "[i]fthe parties to a contract clearly and unequivocally incorporate by reference into their contract some other document, that document becomes part of their contract." Satomi Owners Ass 'n v.