Case law

Harbert v. State

85 Wash. 2d 719 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1975

We think a statement made by the boy shortly after he was taken into custody is relevant, not to establish whether or not he committed the acts alleged, though certainly it may have a tendency to do so, but to aid those qualified … of the original laudable purpose of juvenile courts, studies and critiques in recent years raise serious questions as to whether actual performance measures well enough against theoretical purpose to make tolerable the immunity

Campbell v. Department of Social & Health Services

150 Wash. 2d 881 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 2004

The statute clearly does not apply to medical conditions, here in particular orthopedic conditions, that do not involve cognitive or intellectual impairment like that of mental retardation. … Second, the claimant has not established justifiable reliance.

Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle

190 Wash. 2d 769 · Washington Supreme Court · May 31, 2018

In PAWS, we concluded the UTSA may qualify as a PRA "other statute" in some contexts. 125 Wn.2d at 262("Two state statutes [including the UTSA]qualify as 'other statutes' in the present context, although neither justifies … L/R's valuation of the public records at issue scarcely established a required valuation showing for trade secrets, and certainly falls short of establishing a putative valuation loss under a takings analysis.

Medina v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1

53 P.3d 993 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 12, 2002

Waiver of Sovereign Immunity In 1967, Washington State waived the immunity of its political subdivisions, including municipalities. See Laws of 1967, ch. 164, §§ 1, 4. … The legislature clearly declared that governmental entities should be held just as accountable for their tortious conduct as private persons and corporations. RCW 4.96.010(1).

Good v. West Seattle General Hospital Corp.

53 Wash. 2d 617 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1959

We agree with the trial court that expert testimony was not necessary to establish the negligence, if any, of the defendant. … questions during the examination of witnesses, and more particularly the cross-examination, the trial court has considerable latitude, and its rulings will not be held to be reversible error unless it appears that they are clearly

State Ex Rel. Helm v. Kramer

82 Wash. 2d 307 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1973

Schedule of Annual Salaries Executive Officials The procedure followed by the legislature for the ultimate adoption of this section was in conformity with the direction contained in RCW 43.03.028, which provides for the establishment … the words “support of the state government and its existing institutions” but only qualifies the words “preservation of the public peace, health or safety.”

Wilson v. Board of Governors

90 Wash. 2d 649 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1978

We have examined these cases, as well as others petitioner relies upon, and conclude they are clearly distinguishable. … We also reject the petitioner's argument that he must be granted a hearing to establish that Western is as sound a law school as one which is in fact ABA approved.

Roberts v. Dudley

140 Wash. 2d 58 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 2000

Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy. … Rather, we recognize the long-established tort of wrongful discharge may be established when the discharge is wrongfully accomplished on account of gender.

Graff v. Geisel

39 Wash. 2d 131 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1951

The Graffs did not qualify for the franchise. It was never transferred to them. … The fraud alleged by appellants has not been established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Schulz v. Spokane United Rys., 16 Wn. (2d) 43, 47, 132 P. (2d) 366 .

Sedlacek v. Hillis

36 P.3d 1014 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2001

Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy. … Under the ADA, the term "discriminate" includes "excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known

Sittner v. City of Seattle

62 Wash. 2d 834 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1963

An ordinance to be void for unreasonableness must be plainly and clearly unreasonable. Seattle v. Hurst, 50 Wash. 424 , 97 Pac. 454 (1908). … The plaintiffs have therefore failed to establish that the control exercised by the ordinance over their burning activities is discriminatory and in contravention of Art. 1, § 12 of the state constitution and the fourteenth

McDevitt v. Harborview Medical Center

179 Wash. 2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2013

Clearly, as recent legislative action amply shows, it is not what our legislature intended either. … The general provision establishing the preclaim notice requirement, former RCW 4.92.100 (2009), was amended to exclude health care injuries, providing more equal treatment for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

Shaw v. Vannice

96 Wash. 2d 532 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1981

He was duly elected prior to the Basic Act and is a qualified district court judge under RCW 3.34.060(2)(b). … In Young , the district court judge, who was in a district having a population of less than 10,000, qualified for his position by passing a qualifying examination pursuant to RCW 3.34.060(2)(c).

State v. Kennedy

19 Wash. 2d 152 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1943

It further clearly appears that the payee was either a fictitious person or his signature was forged by the appellant. … Anderson was not qualified as an expert on handwriting and that his testimony was not based upon an established standard of comparison, as required under the authority of State v. McGuff, 104 Wash. 501 , 177 Pac. 316 .

Patrice v. Murphy

966 P.2d 1271 · 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 , 245 P. 11 (emphasis added).

Rohda v. Boen

45 Wash. 2d 553 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1954

The evidence does not clearly preponderate against the above finding. … Having determined that the evidence does not clearly preponderate against any of the challenged findings, they become the established facts of this case; and, as we find no merit in appellants’ assignments of error, the judgment

Northshore School District No. 417 v. Kinnear

84 Wash. 2d 685 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1974

Some districts can more easily afford to incur the nonreimbursable portion of expense such as transportation, and hence can more easily qualify for larger amounts of reimbursement. … Const, art. 1, § 12: "Special Privileges and Immunities Prohibited.

Kittitas County v. Allphin

Washington Supreme Court · May 17, 2018

As a result, they qualify as work product under Civil Rule (CR)26(b)(4). A. … Decisions to this effect confuse the work-product immunity with the attorney-client privilege....

State v. Longshore

141 Wash. 2d 414 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2000

Under a grant of transactional immunity, Irvin, the driver of the vehicle, testified on behalf of the State. … But substantial evidence was presented at trial by qualified experts to demonstrate there is, in fact, a quantifiable market value for uncertified clams.

City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc.

152 Wash. 2d 343 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2004

[Use of such] places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. Hague, 307 U.S. at 515 . … Conclusion Washington follows federal forum analysis and Vincent has established that utility poles are not a traditional public forum.