Case law

In re the Personal Restraint of Hinton

152 Wash. 2d 853 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2004

Judges are not immune to these horrors. … Petitioners have established actual and substantial prejudice resulting from constitutional error.

State Ex Rel. Graham v. City of Olympia

80 Wash. 2d 672 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1972

The act provides a method for deposits, investments, and investment deposits (time deposits) of public funds in qualified public depositaries and establishes an elaborate system to collateralize against loss. *678 We quote … Further sections in the act establish additional regulations for the protection of public deposits.

State Ex Rel. Shoreline Etc. v. Sup. Ct. for King Cty.

55 Wash. 2d 177 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1959

Their alleged private school did not legally qualify as such. … The findings and judgment provided in part: "Presently, a full school curriculum has been established in the Wold residence.

Robertson v. O'Neill

67 Wash. 121 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1912

It was clearly, incompetent under the provisions of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1211. The error was, however, waived by the appellant. … In the trial of a case, any circumstance is admissible which reasonably tends to establish the theory of the party offering it, or to explain, qualify, or disprove the testimony of his adversary.

Michielli v. U. S. Mortgage Co.

58 Wash. 2d 221 · Washington Supreme Court · May 11, 1961

Under the record, the trial court was clearly justified in entering all the findings in finding of fact VII except the finding that there was a failure to prove the financial reports, pertaining to the respondents’ financial … The appellant argues these statements were made on an occasion of a qualified privilege. Assuming, arguendo, that an occasion of a qualified privilege did exist, the privilege was exceeded.

In Re the Recall of Wade

115 Wash. 2d 544 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 8, 1990

Although school districts have been directed to establish affirmative action plans designed to eliminate discrimination against women, districts may not deny anyone employment on the basis of sex. … The petition does not allege acts "clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of the oath of office." Teaford , at 584 (quoting Chandler , at 274).

Marzan v. Kovacs

143 Wash. 2d 412 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2001

Paternity was never established. Fleming decided to give up her son for adoption. … In fact, the Legislature indicated so in RCW 26.33.130(2), stating: “[a]n order terminating the parent-child relationship divests the parent and the child of all legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, and obligations

Kelley v. Howard S. Wright Construction Co.

90 Wash. 2d 323 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1978

Robertson, is covered by the State Industrial Insurance Act and is immune from liability in any action for Kelley's injuries. … This authority over work conditions clearly falls within the rubric of "control" as an exception to the common-law rule of nonliability.

W.H. v. Olympia School Dist.

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

Further, to whatever extent sovereign immunity may have protected school districts from discrimination lawsuits prior to the WLAD, the WLAD clearly abrogated that sovereign immunity when it created a private cause of action … There, we noted, “The Law Against Discrimination enacted in 1949 did not specifically waive the State's sovereign immunity to suit in court, but instead established a state agency to process

In Re Dyer

20 P.3d 907 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2001

In conclusion, the Deputy Director found that Dyer "clearly does not qualify for participation in the extended family visits program based on existing standards." [8] In March 1995, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board … The majority says DOC's decision to place someone in the program is a matter of discretion, majority at 914, but there is no discretion to deny an entitlement established by rule and required *919 for a qualified recipient

National Bank of Commerce v. Reinhardt

34 Wash. 2d 319 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1949

The rule expressed in the foregoing paragraph is, however, significantly qualified by the clause “which is not clearly intended as a mark of personal regard only.” … In such a situation, the concluding clause is mere surplusage, and cannot be given the effect of qualifying the unequivocal opening language.

State v. McDonald

89 Wash. 2d 256 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1977

It was clearly within the trial court's discretion to admit the testimony of Mr. Mitchell and Dr. McCoy. … Those who are commonly regarded as "odd" or "unsound" *273 or even "deranged" would not normally qualify.

Peffley-Warner v. Bowen

113 Wash. 2d 243 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1989

The agency based its decision on the fact that a common-law marriage may not be established in Washington State and that appellant did not qualify as a "wife" under Washington probate law. … There seems to be no more adequate word or phrase which so clearly conveys the precise legal meaning intended since a "common-law marriage" may not be established in this state.

State v. Alexus

91 Wash. 2d 492 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1979

There it was announced that "unavailability as established under [subsection (f)] can be shown only if the prosecution demonstrates good faith and diligent efforts to obtain the availability of the defendant." … Within 17 days of the filing of the information and the issuance of the warrant for Alexus, he could have been found at the Clark County jail, a fact clearly indicated on the court's warrant information form.

State Ex Rel. Tattersall v. Yelle

52 Wash. 2d 856 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1958

"Applying the legislative mandate of liberal construction to the facts in this case, the record establishes that John L. … Quite clearly, this court has original jurisdiction in `mandamus as to all state officers' (Washington state constitution, Art.

Tyee Construction Co. v. Dulien Steel Products, Inc.

62 Wash. 2d 106 · Washington Supreme Court · May 9, 1963

Neff, supra, went on to establish that a judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit unless it satisfies the requirements of due process. … Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.

Moore v. Call

109 Wash. 2d 954 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1988

To be legally sufficient, the petition must state with specificity substantial conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance or violation of the oath of office. Chandler, at 274. … Despite the unrestricted language of these provisions, the majority creates a new exception immunizing legislators from recall when their misconduct consists of words spoken in debate.

In Re Brett

16 P.3d 601 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2001

However, neither Dane nor Foister moved for the appointment of a qualified expert. Whatever testimony Dr. … Dane clearly suffers from bipolar disorder. In a note to counsel, Mr. Keyser diagnoses Mr. Dane, "at the very least, Bipolar II and possibly Bipolar I."

Patrice v. Murphy

136 Wash. 2d 845 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1998

RCW 2.42.120 has been interpreted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as establishing a private cause of action for damages if the statute’s requirements are not complied with. Duffy v. … II, § 19 . . . seems clearly to have been disregarded . . . .” Potter, 138 Wash. at 576 (emphasis added).

State ex rel. Calderwood v. Schomber

23 Wash. 573 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1900

These sections, from the context, clearly refer to civil actions. … It seems to us, the effect of the act in question is to grant just such prohibited immunities, if the construction contended for by respondent is correct.