Case law

State v. GRENNING

234 P.3d 169 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2010

Under CrR 4.7(a) the burden is on the State to establish, not merely claim or allege, the need for appropriate restrictions. … The defendant does not have to establish that effective representation merits a copy of the very evidence supporting the crime charged.

State v. Korum

157 Wash. 2d 614 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2006

Initiative 159 concerned increased punishments for armed crimes and consecutive sentencing for deadly weapon enhancements and is clearly within the scope of the subject and title of that act. … The Court of Appeals also noted that the evidence did not qualify as evidence of prior bad acts wider ER 404(b) because the testimony did not specify whether Korum was a suspect, victim, or witness.

State v. Elmore

985 P.2d 289 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1999

Elmore has failed to establish prejudice. The case upon which Elmore primarily relies, Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. … The prosecutor's comments, while clearly advocacy, simply do not rise to such level.

Estill v. Sisters of Charity

78 Wash. 2d 623 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1970

Since Corrigan at that time had qualified as executor, he knew the value of Miss Reilly's estate and of the provisions of her 1954 will. … Although he was thus apprised of the possibility of a will contest, Corrigan took no steps whatever, such as obtaining independent subscribing witnesses or a medical examination to clearly establish the facts as to undue

State v. Evans

154 Wash. 2d 438 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

“A rule that qualifies under this exception must not only improve accuracy, but also ‘ “alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements ” ’ essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Sawyer v. … Since this case is on collateral review, Swenson bears the burden of establishing that he was actually and substantially prejudiced by this claimed constitutional error. St.

Pierce County v. State

148 P.3d 1002 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 7, 2006

Sound Transit is a municipal corporation and, therefore, its contracts qualify as public contracts. … The taxes authorized, after voter approval, are limited in scope and clearly defined.

Starbuck v. Esparza

118 Wash. 2d 251 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1992

The Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) is helpful in establishing the apphcable standard. The U.C.C. is not apphcable to landlord Hens, but there is a direct interrelationship, and by analogy the U.C.C. is helpful. … The first theory is that CVB qualifies as a "supplier". Therefore, CVB argues it has a supplier's hen under RCW 60.11, quite apart from any U.C.C. security interest. Brief of Esparza, at 17.

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Osborne

Washington Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2016

Here, it was not a close call whether Osborne's conduct violated the RPC since it clearly did. … We have well established the standard for reviewing appeals of hearing officers' recommendations.

Northwest Poultry & Dairy Products Co. v. A. C. Fry Co.

27 Wash. 2d 35 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1947

Fry, each had one share, qualifying them as directors. Upon a settlement and closing of the estates of A. C. Fry and Annie R. Fry, the 1,665 shares held by Mr. … It clearly affirms the McReavy case, but reaches a different result because the facts warranted the application of the following simple and familiar principle of agency: “Ratification may briefly be defined as the subsequent

State v. Evans

154 Wash. 2d 438 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

"A rule that qualifies under this exception must not only improve accuracy, but also "`alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements '" essential to the fairness of a proceeding." Sawyer v. … Since this case is on collateral review, Swenson bears the burden of establishing that he was actually and substantially prejudiced by this claimed constitutional error. St.

State v. Cameron

100 Wash. 2d 520 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1983

Thus, it was clearly inadmissible. Moreover, since the testimony was irrelevant it had no probative value and was therefore inadmissible on that ground. … The issue in both cases pertaining to the subject instruction was whether the terms "right" and "wrong", as used in RCW 9A.12.010(1)(b), should be qualified for the jury.

Osborn v. Grant County

130 Wash. 2d 615 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1996

Osborn and the Board clearly have genuine and opposing interests, with each claiming control over the clerk’s office employees. … Compared to the auditor’s August 19, 1993 letter, the Board’s letter of July 8, 1993, does not qualify as a final decision. The July 8 letter was merely precatory.

In Re the Personal Restraint of Stenson

174 Wash. 2d 474 · Washington Supreme Court · May 10, 2012

Ed. 2d 614 (2009) (Stevens, J., concurring) (transferring case to United States District Court to determine whether evidence that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly established Davis’s innocence (quoting … In our view, there is substantial evidence to support Judge Williams’s finding that the FBI file qualifies as impeachment evidence for Brady purposes and that the evidence was favorable to Stenson on the issue of guilt. 8

State v. Chenoweth

Washington Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2016

We have held that where legislative intent is clearly indicated, that intent controls the offender score. See Calle, 125 Wn.2d at 778. … Id. 5 5 This court has observed, citing in part to Dunaway and Adame, that "Divisions One and Three have followed this court's precedent establishing a factors balancing approach to the 'same criminal intent' test."

State v. Simpson

95 Wash. 2d 170 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1980

criminal culpability was also sufficient to establish Fourth Amendment "standing." … Const. art. 1, § 7 differs from the Fourth Amendment in that it clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations. In State v. Brackman, 178 Mont. 105 , 582 P.2d 1216 (1978), and State v.

In Re Boot

925 P.2d 964 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1996

The Legislature here clearly determined to increase the punishment for youthful offenders for the most serious violent crimes by statutorily expanding the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court over 16- and 17-year-olds … Moreover, the statute unambiguously places the qualifying "and" clause squarely and only in subsection (B).

In re the Detention of Brooks

145 Wash. 2d 275 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2001

At his trial, Brooks asked the court to instruct the jury that the State must establish that he could not be safely treated in an LRA to total confinement, but the court refused. Id. … “Nevertheless, an amendment may be retroactively applied if the Legislature so intended or if the amendment is *285 ‘clearly curative.’ ” Id. (quoting Howell v.

State v. Northwest Magnesite Co.

28 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1947

The Company [Northwest] is clearly incorrect in deducting mining costs at present, as I told Mr. Garber. . . . … is clearly necessary to invoke the doctrine in order to prevent manifest injustice.

State v. Brett

126 Wash. 2d 136 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1995

Ryan is not qualified to diagnose FAS/FAE. … The verdict form and instruction 4 clearly inform the jury that if it is unable to unanimously agree, the sentence will be life without parole.

Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. Airport Inv. Co.

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 4, 2016

Oh's statement regarding her belief as to the value in July of 2012 was clearly offered against AIC. … One certainty is established: the property owner never had the decision to accept an offer never presented.