Case law

In re Pers. Restraint of Lui

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2017

This does not mean that jury discussions are immune from judicial review. … established later.

Dishman v. Northern Pacific Beneficial Ass'n

96 Wash. 182 · Washington Supreme Court · May 8, 1917

Thompson, as claimed in behalf of Dishman, at some length, to the end that we have clearly before us the exact issue touching Dr. Thompson’s negligence as claimed in Dishman’s behalf. … Thompson were other than well qualified physicians and surgeons, or that their professional opinions, expressed in their above quoted testimony, were other than their honest convictions arrived at from a painstaking examination

In re Pers. Restraint of Fero

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2018

Fero said she was too upset to think clearly and so could not remember saying these things to the investigators. In re Pers. … It establishes through scientific evidence that Brynn probably experienced a prolonged lucid interval before losing consciousness.

Guimont v. Clarke

121 Wash. 2d 586 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1993

Tenants who do not qualify as low income are not entitled to receive any assistance from the relocation fund. … The Court observed: "Temporary" takings that deny a landowner all use of his or her property "are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly requires compensation".

Blomstrom v. Tripp

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2017

Despite this implicit concession, "'[w]e may affirm the [lower] court on any grounds established by the pleadings and supported by the record.'" … But what qualifies as permissible governmental considerations is not without limitation.

State v. Bennett

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 15, 2026

The State maintains that invited error is the correct framework, but it adds that if reached, no error occurred here because none of the statements qualify as hearsay. … The majority expands the well-established, narrow rule of completeness by changing the rule’s second requirement: that both statements must concern the same subject matter.

Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services

172 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2011

[i]ncreased cost is clearly not a fact or concern here." … Clearly, because the rule stated in Ongom is the same rule established by Nguyen (a case the *357 lead opinion does not overrule), Ongom is not incorrect. ¶ 70 Nor is the rule stated in Ongom harmful.

State v. Thomas

150 Wash. 2d 821 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2004

He was unable to see clearly the features of the man driving but noted that neither the passenger nor the driver looked to him like Geist. … Moreover, the evidence clearly shows his premeditated intent to murder Geist if he had to.

Orion Corporation v. State

109 Wash. 2d 621 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1987

A significant enough economic impact has never, in and of itself, been sufficient to establish a regulatory taking under Washington law. … However, the SMA and SCSMMP qualified as a public health and safety regulation, insulated from characterization as a taking, and thus subject to challenge only under substantive due process.

Von Herberg v. Von Herberg

6 Wash. 2d 100 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1940

Appellant contends that the corporate veil should be pierced, due to the fact that the stock was wholly owned by the von Herbergs, except for one qualifying share owned by respondent’s attorney. … Here, however, the salaries were established long before the divorce action was started; and there is no showing that they were begun in order to enable respondent to avoid the operation of the normal cotenancy rule.

Evans v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

26 Wash. 2d 594 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1946

Clearly, here was a case of an unusual, unexpected, and unforeseen event accompanying the voluntary act prior to the injury — the blood poisoning infection — so that the injury might be said to be accidental means. … Where the liability of the insurance company is so restricted, it is not sufficient for a beneficiary to establish a direct causal connection between the accident and the injury.

Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc.

241 P.3d 1256 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 2010

If the loss qualifies as waste under the statute, the economic loss rule simply cannot bar a plaintiff's claim under the statute. … If it is a duty solely assumed by agreement, contract remedies apply, and if it is a duty based upon a standard of care imposed by established law, unless clearly waived or modified by agreement, tort remedies apply.

Dep't of Ecology v. Acquavella

Washington Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2021

We ultimately held that it “makes no sense to mandate an immediate appeal from a partial final judgment entered under CR 54(b), even though the judgment might qualify as appealable under RAP 2.2(d)” because … Therefore, any rights not “clearly shown to have been granted” under the Code Agreement were reserved by the Yakama Nation. Id.

Monroe v. Winn

16 Wash. 2d 497 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1943

Clearly, the three trustees are guilty of the grossest abuse of the duty which they owed as trustees to their fiduciaries. … The trustees, by the void order they obtained, established the value of their services to the estate. That the trustees have been amply compensated is clear from an examination of the record.

State v. Thorne

921 P.2d 514 · 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. Smith

Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2014

It puts the decision and the ability to establish a record in the hands of the defendant. … Parties argued over whether a detective was qualified to offer an opinion of handwriting found in the defendant's car.

Barton v. Dep't of Transp.

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2013

"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(1)(b)." Kottler v. … To support imposition of one of the greater sanctions-such as a new trial-the record must clearly show (1) one party 25 Barton v.

State v. Sublett

176 Wash. 2d 58 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2012

It is clearly for the benefit of the individual potential jurors who would much prefer to offer such sensitive information in a private setting. … established they were actually prejudiced by the in-chambers limited, private questioning of some of the members of the venire.

Osborn v. Grant County

926 P.2d 911 · 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.

Sanders v. State

240 P.3d 120 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 16, 2010

Clearly, this broad definition includes evidence that does not facially relate to a given controversy, but whose relevance arises indirectly from context. See Faust v. … This is unusual: Justice Sanders's attorneys established the violation by suing.