Case law

State v. Smith

Washington Supreme Court · Nov 22, 2017

In the privacy act, "[t]he legislature intended to No. 93923-3 establish protections for individuals' privacy and to require suppression of recordings of even conversations relating to unlawful matters if the recordings … Specifically, the State asserts that the content ofthe recording qualifies as neither a conversation nor private.

Killian v. Seattle Pub. Schs.

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 12, 2017

union attorney for breach offiduciary duty, malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and state law governing union representative conduct are subsumed into DFR claim against union, despite no express immunity … Indeed, many of PECBA's provisions are clearly based on the NLRA.

State v. Eserjose

259 P.3d 172 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2011

An alternative "but for" principle would make it virtually impossible to rehabilitate an investigation once misconduct has occurred, granting suspected criminals a permanent immunity unless, by chance, other law enforcement … I dissent. ¶ 47 It is well established that article I, section 7 provides greater protection than its federal counterpart and "`clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations.'" State v.

McKee v. AT&T Corp.

164 Wash. 2d 372 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2008

The arbitration process established by this section is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 . … You have the right to take any dispute that qualifies to small claims court rather than arbitration.

State v. Frampton

95 Wash. 2d 469 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1981

The Washington statute is clearly sufficient to meet this standard. RCW 10.94.020(7), (8), (10)(a), (b); RCW 9A.32-.045(2). Certainly the rationale and results of Jurek can be argued. … Wilson qualifies "immediately unconscious" to mean "a matter of perhaps ten seconds."

State v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2017

See LAWS OF 1998, ch. 1, § 2 ("It is the intent of the legislature ... to establish public policy against same-sex marriage in statutory law that clearly and definitively declares same-sex marriages will not … Ed. 1213 (1940), provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

State v. Jorgenson

Washington Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2013

RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iv) clearly imposes a substantial burden on Jorgenson's liberty interest. … Nor does the assault charge establish that the automatic removal of Jorgenson's firearm rights is necessary to advance the State's interest in safety.

Boeing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

113 Wash. 2d 869 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1990

The "as damages" clause qualifies the phrase "all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay." Certification order, at 3. … Congress clearly recognized that corporate polluters have reaped enormous benefits from their past inadequate waste disposal practices.

Richison v. Nunn

57 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1959

We think that clearly it cannot. It should be remembered that immediately after her operation, pain was the only symptom of which the plaintiff complained. … , was so apparent that no expert testimony was necessary to establish the negligence, that being established by the facts alone." [10] The rule in malpractice actions is that a surgeon is not liable merely because of a bad

State v. Campbell

103 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1984

Our review of the cases and questionnaires clearly indicates defendant's sentence was proportionate to the crime committed. … Clearly the mandate of the people of Washington, as expressed through the legislative and initiative processes, is to impose the death penalty.

State v. Schmidt

23 P.3d 462 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 2001

This clearly implies the statute is regulatory in nature and the overall intent is to improve public health and safety. … Clearly, restricting a person's right to possess a firearm, as a consequence of a criminal conviction, is punishment.

Wilson v. Lund

74 Wash. 2d 945 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1968

Clearly, such a procedure avoids the potential of a second suit that might become necessary to apportion any award of damages between the father and the mother. … The words "child," "children," "issue," etc., qualify and must be read in connection with the word "man," "person," "deceased," etc. ....

State v. Foster

957 P.2d 712 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1998

Such cursory analysis does injustice to the constitutional jurisprudence we established in Gunwall. … At least, however, there is some established link providing justification for such reliance.

Cent. Puget Sound Reg'l Transit Auth. v. WR-Sri 120th N. LLC

422 P.3d 891 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2018

This test was established over a century ago, and we have never had the opportunity to apply it in practice. … Sound Transit argues that this qualifies as a CR 2(A) stipulation that the two public uses are compatible.

In Re Detention of Thorell

72 P.3d 708 · 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. [17] However, there is no talismanic significance to a particular diagnosis

In re Pers. Restraint of Kennedy

Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2022

Steinberg’s declaration does not qualify as newly discovered evidence. … Therefore, while we often avoid sentence range for that offense; or (b) that the sentence imposed was clearly excessive or clearly too lenient.”). 23 For

Wool Growers Service Corp. v. Simcoe Sheep Co.

18 Wash. 2d 655 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1943

It seems to me that this is a typical case for applying the rule that trial judges are better qualified to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. … The purpose of such proof is to establish the freedom of the cestui que trust from any influence or control of the trustee.

State v. Thorne

129 Wash. 2d 736 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1996

However, in this case we need not decide whether the part of the Initiative which concerns early release is beyond the scope of the ballot title because the part of the law which is involved in the case before us now is clearly … the state constitution than under the federal constitution, and, in any event, the right to equal protection under the law guaranteed by Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and by the privileges and immunities

State v. Burke

181 P.3d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 13, 2008

We can discern nothing in the policy of the law against self-incrimination which would require the extension of immunity to any trial or to any tribunal other than that in which the defendant preserves it by refusing to testify … In order to establish manifest constitutional error, a defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice.

State v. Lui

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 2, 2014

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. … Raven's autopsy report qualifies as "testimonial" under any test.