Case law

Stout v. Warren

176 Wash. 2d 263 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2012

The burden is on the party asserting that an activity is abnormally dangerous to establish a factual basis for that conclusion. See Anderson, 801 F.2d at 939-40 . … Notably, the statute does not provide immunity to the bounty hunter. On remand, CJ Johnson may assert assumption of risk or comparative fault, depending on the facts.

State v. Case

187 Wash. 2d 85 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2016

VRP (Mar. 17-18, 2013) at 6. ¶33 The majority asserts that this stipulation “appeared to establish that Case agreed he had two prior qualifying convictions under RCW 26.50.110(5) as alleged in the charging information.” … LEXIS 5907 , at *5. ¶37 Under this authority, Case’s stipulation was insufficient to establish that he had two qualifying prior convictions. ¶38 The State has made the backup argument that Case invited this error by signing

Rickert v. Public Disclosure Commission

161 Wash. 2d 843 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2007

contain a majority opinion requiring that all of the elements for a defamation suit must be established in order for speech to fall outside First Amendment protections under New York Times. … First, it is the standard established by the Court to satisfy competing constitutional concerns.

School District No. 20 v. Bryan

51 Wash. 498 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1909

The public school system shall include common schools, and such high schools, normal schools, and technical schools as may hereafter be established. … And the same court, in expressing its unwillingness to conjure an excuse for such legislation, said: “If the General Assembly- may appropriate the revenues of the school fund for any purpose which cannot be clearly shown

Gorre v. City of Tacoma

184 Wash. 2d 30 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2015

The legislature clearly drafted RCW 51.32.185(3) to restrict RCW 51.32.185(l)(c)’s cancer presumption, which “shall only apply to” the specific cancers it identifies. … We also interpret RCW 51.32-.185(4) as the exclusive list of “infectious diseases” qualifying under RCW 51.32.185(l)(d).

State v. Parris

98 Wash. 2d 140 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1982

The Superior Court found the testimony admissible, and this ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Division Two, which held that the trustworthiness of DeHart's statements was established in that they qualified as exceptions … In order to qualify as a statement against penal interest, a declaration need not have been a clear and unequivocal admission of criminal conduct. In United States v.

Armantrout v. Carlson

166 Wash. 2d 931 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2009

ANALYSIS ¶8 RCW 4.20.020 establishes two tiers of beneficiaries in a wrongful death suit. … By excluding the everyday services a child would routinely provide, the trial court clearly established the boundaries within which the jury would be allowed to consider the Armantrouts’ financial dependence on valuable services

State v. Queen

73 Wash. 2d 706 · Washington Supreme Court · May 2, 1968

Piche, 71 Wn.2d 583 , 430 P.2d 522 (1967), to the effect that a regular practicing attorney is presumed to be qualified, does not apply *708 in the instant case because appellant’s trial counsel was disbarred approximately … Mode, 57 Wn.2d 829, 833 , 360 P.2d 159 (1961),said: Mistakes or errors of judgment do not establish the violation of a constitutional right.

Parrish v. Reed

2 Wash. 491 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1891

And it would have followed that the order of' this court would be pleaded as justification for an act which was in its opinion, clearly illegal. … The above statement clearly shows that the course contended for by the petitioner would be an improper and dangerous one.

State ex rel. Richey v. Smith

42 Wash. 237 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1906

, as a general principle of law, that it is the province of the legislature to determine whether the conditions exist which warrant the exercise of this power; but the question, what are the subjects of its exercise, is clearly … E. 373 , an act forbidding the employment of bakers in biscuit, bread or cake bakeries, or in confectionery establishments for more than sixty hours in any one week, came before the court for consideration.

Shaw v. Shumway

3 Wash. 2d 112 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1940

been signed by more than ten per cent of the qualified electors. … Clearly, there is a difference between the entry of a judicial order requiring the calling of a special election to fill an unanticipated vacancy in an elective office, when there is not sufficient time before the date of

Lundeen v. Department of Labor & Industries

78 Wash. 2d 66 · Washington Supreme Court · May 20, 1970

As to such a claim under the Military Claims Act he need establish only causation; if he chooses the Federal Tort Claims Act he must, of course, establish negligence. … The myth of a gift, when a government compensated those who had been injured by its representatives, disappeared when governmental immunity was exorcised. If Mrs.

Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers

936 P.2d 1123 · Washington Supreme Court · May 8, 1997

The court concluded because the state law deprived the paper of its editorial discretion, it was necessarily unconstitutional as applied to the newspaper. [14] Thus, Miami Herald clearly establishes that editorial control … Since this right is established by the statute we need not consider whether it is also established by the state constitution.

Philippides v. Bernard

88 P.3d 939 · Washington Supreme Court · May 4, 2004

They argue that the intent section defines "support" as meaning significant involvement in the child's life, which can be established by emotional support. … Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause (article I, section 12) of the Washington Constitution.

Boeing Aircraft Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries

22 Wash. 2d 423 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1945

Stout, 11 Wn. (2d) 184, 118 P. (2d) 801 , the court cited the O’Brien and Reeder cases (with others), saying: “While the foregoing cases are not directly in point, they do clearly establish two essential requirements which … It would seem that appellant recognizes the difficulty of its position, stating in its opening brief (p. 31): “If this immunity from suit, which thereby prohibits indemnification of the accident fund, is wrong, clearly this

State ex rel. Milliken v. Board of Commissioners

49 Wash. 70 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1908

The constitutional provision is as follows: “The legislature shall establish a system of county government, which shall be uniform throughout the state, and by general laws shall provide for township organization, under which … The italicized words in these provisions show clearly *75 what votes were to be considered in determining the majority.

Seattle High School Chapter No. 200 v. Sharples

159 Wash. 424 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1930

The exercise of the power to employ does not in any way affect a present teaching force or any part of it, but only the right of contract in creating or establishing a future teaching force. … We are very clearly of opinion that nothing exists in the statutes giving the courts any such power.”

Snyder v. Medical Service Corp.

145 Wash. 2d 233 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 13, 2001

measures to make such opportunities known to her and to determine whether she is in fact qualified. … Snyder fails to clearly articulate what duty she would have us impose on her employer. There is no duty for an employer to provide employees with a stress free workplace.

In Re F.D. Processing, Inc.

119 Wash. 2d 452 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1992

First, the comments of a single legislator are generally considered inadequate to establish legislative intent. See Yakima v. … The amendment must be "clearly curative" for it to be retroactively applied. Howell, 114 Wn.2d at 47 .

State Ex Rel. Thielicke v. Superior Court

9 Wash. 2d 309 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1941

The immunity is absolute, and, when consent is given, it may be qualified or conditional and may specify a particular court in which the permitted actions may be maintained. … It is a well-established rule of ancient origin that a general statute which tends to restrain or diminish rights and interests should not be construed to apply to the sovereign government unless the same be comprised therein