Case law

State v. Buckman

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2018

Under a SSOSA, the court sentences a qualifying defendant to a term of confinement up to 12 months followed by a term of community custody, and imposes appropriate conditions such as undergoing appropriate sex offender … In sum, we have clearly and repeatedly established that the petitioner must show not only error, but also actual and substantial prejudice.

Scott v. Cingular Wireless

161 P.3d 1000 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2007

In rejecting a claim that the bar on class proceedings in an arbitration agreement had the effect of immunizing the company from low-value claims, the Fifth Circuit pointed out that it "must take into account that both federal … The court's subsequent discussion of whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable is therefore clearly dicta.

Estate of Jaaska v. Jaaska

27 Wash. 2d 433 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1947

Jaaska, who also was named as executor in said will, and who apparently qualified as such. In addition to the real property specifically devised to Alex H. … There was clearly established a relationship of trust and confidence. (2) Beneficiary’s active participation in preparation or procurement of will.

In re Custody of B.M.H.

Washington Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2013

s stepfather is not an automatic bar to establishing de facto parentage. … Such restrictions on who may qualify for domestic partnership might lead to results perceived to be unfair or arbitrary.

Tyson v. Tyson

107 Wash. 2d 72 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1986

Although never clearly setting forth a clear rationale, the majority apparently relies on an inaccurate perception of the history, purpose, and prior application of the discovery rule. … Although statutes of limitations establish time periods for the commencement of actions, the statutes generally do not establish the point at which the time periods begin to run.

Barton v. Department of Transportation

178 Wash. 2d 193 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2013

discovery sanctions, (3) constituted a “Mary Carter” 2 agreement that improperly realigned the interests of the parties, and (4) resulted in an unfair trial because (a) *200 the State was unable to cross-examine Korrine to establish … “Settling parties, released parties, and immune parties are not parties against whom judgment is entered and will not be jointly and severally liable under RCW 4.22.070(l)(b).” Kottler v.

Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.

930 P.2d 288 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1997

The illegality of such an exclusion under similar facts was established as a matter of law in Brown v. … Leingang and PCM was not clearly covered by this law because the provision regarding medical benefits and UIM benefits was written as an exclusion from coverage and not a subrogation provision. [3] Mr.

State v. West

983 P.2d 617 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1999

In that case, a defendant's attorney failed to interview and call several witnesses that, if believed, would have established the defendant's alibi defense. … He is, therefore, best qualified to determine what credence or consideration should be given to the retraction, and his opinion is accordingly entitled to great weight.

State v. O'CONNOR

119 P.3d 806 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2005

Griswold, 98 Wash.App. 817, 830-31 , 991 P.2d 657 (2000) (the witness's prior false statement was "`clearly collateral'" and "not germane to the guilt issues here"); State v. … But this result would be clearly contrary to ER 608, which grants trial courts discretion to make such determinations.

Parrish v. Ash

32 Wash. 2d 637 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1949

In the light of this rule, we are clearly of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding, as a fact, that at the end of the trip on September 8th, the day before the accident, Mrs. … The qualifying phrase limits the scope of ‘invited guest or licensee’ by indicating plainly that gratuitous carriage only is intended.

State v. Evans

136 Wash. 2d 811 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1998

So too it is clearly the rule in this jurisdiction as well that the “necessity” of the taking must be defined by the narrowest estate in land which will accomplish the public use; whereas condemnation of an easement or other … VI, § 19: The government may take in fee, “more land and property than is needed for actual construction in the establishing . . . public highways . . .

OneWest Bank, FSB v. Erickson

185 Wash. 2d 43 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2016

The party disputing a foreign order has the burden of establishing lack of jurisdiction. In re Parentage of Infant Child F., 178 Wn. App. 1, 8 , 313 P.3d 451 (2013) (citing Williams v. S.S. Mut. … Because Erickson was clearly aware of and consented to the deed of trust encumbering the Spokane property when it was executed, she *73 should not now be permitted to challenge a technical defect in the notary’s certification

Martin v. Triol

121 Wash. 2d 135 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1993

minimize miscarriages of justice based on unnecessarily complex procedures, and have applied the 90-day rule to a variety of statutory time limits. 46 *147 The purpose of the substituted service statute, RCW 46.64.040, is clearly … plaintiff must "cause one or more of the defendants to be served ... within ninety days from the date of filing the complaint." 60 We are concerned in this case with whether substituted service on the Secretary of State qualifies

State Ex Rel. TB v. CPC Fairfax Hosp.

918 P.2d 497 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1996

to establish guidelines beneficial to and protective of their children. … The legislature further finds that 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. Anderson

Washington Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2022

The court reasoned that Anderson clearly “understood the consequences of his actions because he discussed them in letters.” 2 Tr. at 60. … excesses of the demonization of youth during the war on crime by limiting the 3 This court had barred Yamashita from taking the bar exam based on his Japanese ancestry despite being otherwise qualified

State v. Luthi

3 Wash. 3d 249 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 13, 2024

A defendant’s right to appear in court free from unjustified restraints is well established as a matter of federal and state due process law. 3 Deck, 544 U.S. at 626; Jackson, 195 Wn.2d at 852. … Most importantly, the in-court holding cell clearly undermines the presumption of innocence.

In re Adoption of T.A.W.

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 27, 2016

Congress and our legislature took great care to qualify several different parties as "Indian." … This is so because (1) T.A.W. is an Indian child and (2) the termination proceedings clearly met the definition of "child custody proceeding."

State v. Lui

179 Wash. 2d 457 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 2, 2014

Id. at 329-30 (Thomas, J., concurring). 4 And indeed, the majority’s definition of testimony subject to the confrontation clause was qualified by a requirement of formality such as former testimony, statements under oath, … The Supreme Court has never clearly set forth the confrontation clause requirements for when an expert witness relies on the work of others to arrive at his' or her own conclusion. ¶58 Sixth, the dissent attaches great importance

In re the Detention of Thorell

149 Wash. 2d 724 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 10, 2003

We have clearly rooted our rejection of profile testimony in ER 403, ER 702, and ER 703. … Gordon Gordon’s primary objection to his commitment under the SVPA is that his schizophrenia could also qualify him for commitment under chapter 71.05 RCW. 17 However, there is no talismanic significance to a particular diagnosis

Rumford v. Snider

31 Wash. 2d 431 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1948

“It seems clearly a matter for the trier of the fact and not as a matter of law showing that he was guilty of contributory negligence. … It was objected that he had not been qualified to *463 answer that question; and the objection was rightly sustained.