Case law

State v. Kreck

86 Wash. 2d 112 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1975

The tests were clearly made in the course of the business of the Washington State Toxicological Laboratory. … The circumstances and procedure under which the tests were conducted show the report clearly meets this fourth requirement. 5.

In Re the Guardianship of Hayes

93 Wash. 2d 228 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1980

See generally Note, Judicial Immunity, 11 Ind. L. Rev. 489 (1978). … While this statute did not authorize sterilizations, it was clearly based on eugenic principles.

In Re Disability Proceeding Against Diamondstone

105 P.3d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2005

The hearing officer concluded that these materials "speak for themselves;" they clearly evidence symptoms of Diamondstone's mental illness. FOF 13. … Moreover, the record does not support a finding that Diamondstone is a qualified individual who can meet the Association's licensing requirements, even with her suggested accommodation.

In re Mason

3 Wash. 609 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1892

It follows, as clearly as by a mathematical demonstration, that the petitioner belongs to the reform school.” … The incorrigible of the first and second classes goes back to the court whence he came, and is discharged; but he of the third class, not having arrived at the age of eighteen years, has not earned the immunity provided by

In Re Schatz

80 Wash. 2d 604 · Washington Supreme Court · May 11, 1972

Definitions A “general applicant” means either (1) a graduate of an approved law school who does not qualify as an attorney applicant under Rule 3, or (2) a registered law clerk who has satisfactorily completed the course … The language of the statute clearly lodges all ultimate authority in the Supreme Court. The Board of Governors, acting in this area, is an arm of the court, independent of legislative direction.

Heidebrink v. Moriwaki

104 Wash. 2d 392 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1985

We now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on the basis that the statement is protected by the work product immunity rule codified in CR 26(b)(3). … Such an obligation clearly creates a reasonable expectation that the contents of statements made by the insured will not be revealed to the opposing party.

Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC

Washington Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2019

Assuming that is true, we are clearly not part of that majority, as Kelley itself demonstrates. … Conclusion Our prior decisions have clearly held that general contractors have expansive duties to ensure worker safety.

State Ex Rel. Carroll v. Gatter

43 Wash. 2d 153 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1953

This clearly and concisely expresses the purpose and defines the scope of the abatement statute here under consideration. … be gained by showing mathematically that the principal business of the establishment is legitimate.

Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.

996 P.2d 582 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2000

If the Legislature chooses to do so, it will have the opportunity to clearly detail the requirements necessary to qualify for that exception. … It is illogical to look to a federal regulation to establish the test for determining whether an employee qualifies as an exempt employee, but disregard the same regulation when determining whether an inadvertent deduction

State v. McCoy

63 Wash. 2d 421 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1963

The trial court acquitted him, holding that the Treaty of Point Elliott granted him immunity from state regulatory powers. The state appeals. … That case involved the Indians’ right to fish on the reservation, as is clearly shown by the statement of the court on page 662: “In the case of State v.

Osborn v. Mason County

134 P.3d 197 · Washington Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

The "anyone else," in context, was clearly Dr. … The plaintiffs have also established sufficient facts from which a jury could find Dracobly failed to exercise reasonable care.

Horvath v. DBIA Servs.

Washington Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2025

For an individual like Horvath, who lives in the Metropolitan Improvement District and pays assessments that fund DBIA’s operations and the salaries of its employees, DBIA’s immunity from the Public Records Act would clearly … To establish a PBIA, citizens 2 Horvath v.

In Re Detention of As

982 P.2d 1156 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1999

Work appropriately qualified as an expert. … To the contrary, the statutes clearly contemplate procedures involving very disturbed individuals.

Abbott v. Thorne

65 L.R.A. 826 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1904

This is a Forth Dakota case, and presents that view of the law very forcibly and clearly, and the conflicting cases are discussed with great precision and power. … The doctrine of privileged communications rests upon public policy, ‘which looks to the free and unfettered administration of justice, though, as an incidental result, it may, in some instances, afford an immunity to the

Peacehealth St. Joseph Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Revenue

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2020

manage benefits for a qualifying program.” … Washington’s CHIP and Medicaid programs are both “program[s] under chapter 74.09 RCW”—Washington’s Medicaid program is established under RCW 74.09.500 and CHIP is established under RCW 74.09.470(1).

State v. Longshore

5 P.3d 1256 · 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.

Department of Ecology v. Public Utility District No. 1

121 Wash. 2d 179 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1993

We conclude that Tacoma has not carried its burden of establishing federal preemption. … In its findings of fact, the trial court found the Board's conclusion to be clearly erroneous.

In Re Johnson

71 Wash. 2d 245 · Washington Supreme Court · May 15, 1967

That case is clearly distinguishable. … The immunity herein provided shall extend only to natural persons so compelled to testify."

Mahaney v. Mahaney

146 Wash. 2d 878 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 25, 2002

Well-established principles for deciding custody matters should further the act’s goals. … The order clearly contemplates a review following the mother’s participation in services.

Frach v. Schoettler

46 Wash. 2d 281 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1955

. *285 It is a well established rule that one who attacks the constitutionality of a law, clearly has the burden of proof. Shea v. Olson, 185 Wash. 143, 151 , 53 P. (2d) 615 , 111 A. L. … Dexter, supra, p. 557. *291 Appellants’ rights with reference to the “due process clause” and the “privilege and immunity clauses,” as set out in Art.