Case law

State v. Atsbeha

16 P.3d 626 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

Rose was qualified to testify as an expert, [8] but nevertheless excluded her testimony with the following explanation: THE COURT: ... … This evidence would be relevant and admissible to establish an insanity defense under RCW 9A.12.010, [48] but not relevant and admissible to establish a diminished capacity defense.

King County Water District No. 54 v. King County Boundary Review Board

87 Wash. 2d 536 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1976

The commands of the equal protection and privileges and immunities clauses are, of course, applicable here. 2 The latter provision was the basis for the holding in Malim v. Benthien, supra. … Ariz. 1970), aff’d mem., 402 U.S. 967 (1971), the court upheld a state statute limiting the franchise in municipal water bond elections to qualified electors of the municipality.

State v. Winterstein

167 Wash. 2d 620 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2009

It differs from its federal counterpart in that article I, section 7 “clearly recognizes an individual’s right to privacy with no express limitations.” State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, 110 , 640 P.2d 1061 *632 (1982). … When evidence is obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, there is no need to balance the particular circumstances and interests involved.

State v. Swarva

86 Wash. 2d 29 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1975

This is not a case where, as in Medina , a particular theory is entirely speculative and clearly inappropriate. … the full amount so established.

Benton v. Seattle Electric Co.

50 Wash. 156 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1908

It is urged by respondent that the last-mentioned statute is thus affected and that, under the well-established rule that a general must give way to a special statute and a former to a latter, it follows that the direct amendment … This case is clearly distinguishable from that of Hindman v.

Washington Education Ass'n v. Department of Retirement Systems

181 Wash. 2d 212 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2014

For the employees to prevail, therefore, they must establish that “there is no reasonable doubt that the statute violates the constitution.” Larson v. … The first prong of the Carlstrom analysis asks whether gain sharing became part of the parties’ employment contract, which it clearly did.

State ex rel. Govan v. Clausen

108 Wash. 133 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 6, 1919

1917D 810, the plaintiff sought to enjoin defendants from enforcing the provisions of the fisheries code of 1915, on the ground that the law, if enforced, would deny to him and all other gill-net fishermen privileges and immunities … This is clearly illustrated by the case of Zimmerman v. Brooks, 118 Ky. 85 , 80 S. W. 443 , cited by respondent.

Boehme v. Broadway Theater Co.

91 Wash. 104 · Washington Supreme Court · May 6, 1916

He was apparently an unwilling witness and attempted to qualify this statement, but admitted that, before signing the affidavit, he had revised it to make it accurately state his recollection of the facts. … It is now conceded that, at the time of this transaction, the business was not only not making money but was steadily running behind, and the evidence clearly establishes the fact that never at any time throughout its career

Long v. Chiropractic Society

93 Wash. 2d 757 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1980

Plaintiff United appears to be qualified to sponsor a symposium under the trial court's order. During the period pertinent to this action, both CSW and WCA sponsored relicensing symposia. … If CSW's conduct of its relicensing symposium was in fact discriminatory toward them, to prevail under RCW 18.25.150 respondents must establish that state action is involved or that CSW acted with state agency status.

Bjork v. City of Tacoma

76 Wash. 225 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1913

Eliminating the questions of notice to the city and contrib *228 utory negligence of the parents of the child, which, under the evidence, were clearly for the jury, there is but one question presented for our consideration … S.) 88, chiefly relied upon by the respondent, though carrying the doctrine of immunity as a matter of law to a considerable extent, by no means goes as far as we are asked to extend it in this case.

State ex rel. Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission

93 Wash. 2d 398 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1980

I Factual Background The State has no general immunity from liability in civil cases and is legally liable for its torts. RCW 4.92. … Thus the State clearly has not shown that the Public Service Revolving Fund finances the activity causing liability.

Wusthoff v. Schwartz

32 Wash. 337 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1903

In ruling upon the motion the court said, in substance, that although, under the testimony, it clearly appeared that damages had been shown, yet it also equally clearly appeared that whatever acts were done by respondent … It is a well-established rule that actual force is not necessary *341 to effect an eviction in law, but that any interference by the landlord with the full and .substantial enjoyment.by the tenant of the thing leased amounts

Ryan v. Ryan

48 Wash. 2d 593 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1956

They are conclusive and immune from attack by parol or extrinsic evidence. In Union Machinery & Supply Co. v. Darnell, 89 Wash. 226 , 154 Pac. 183 (1916), the court illustrated this principle by quoting from Jackson v. … Clearly not. The reason is that it has been contracted otherwise by the parties and that contract has been reduced to writing.” The proffered evidence does not tend to vary the written agreement.

Salstrom's Vehicles, Inc. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

87 Wash. 2d 686 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1976

Respondent also relies on the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution which is given substantially the same construction as the federal equal protection clause. See Northshore School Dist. 417 v. … Treating dealers who offer vehicles with warranties differently from those who do not is clearly related to the purpose of insuring warranty work is performed and performed well.

Krings v. City of Bremerton

22 Wash. 2d 220 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 24, 1945

of liability of municipal corporations for the negligence of its employees while performing governmental functions, this court said: “In passing, it may be noted that in at least the following instances, the doctrine of immunity … does not apply: . . . (2) where damage or injury has been occasioned through the establishment, maintenance, or permission of a nuisance.”

Beggs v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH

247 P.3d 421 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 2011

"A grant of immunity from liability clearly implies that civil liability can exist in the first place." Doe, 141 Wash.App. at 422-23 , 167 P.3d 1193 . … RCW 4.20.020 establishes two classes of beneficiaries. First tier beneficiaries do not need to demonstrate dependency to recover.

State v. Seifert

65 Wash. 596 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1911

If the killing was excusable or justifiable, the fact would constitute a defense for the defendant to establish. “The state is not bound to anticipate defenses and aver facts rendering them unavailing. … Hodgdon, 41 Vt. 139 , it is said: “Exceptions should be negatived only where they are descriptive of the offense or define it, but where the exceptions afford matter of excuse merely, and do not define nor qualify the offense

Washington Manufactured Housing Ass'n v. Public Utility District No. 3

124 Wash. 2d 381 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1994

The PUD clearly has a legitimate interest in energy conservation. See Tacoma v. Taxpayers, 108 Wn.2d 679, 696-97 , 743 P.2d 793 (1987). … To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a plaintiff must allege (1) defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities protected by

Smith v. Shannon

100 Wash. 2d 26 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1983

While the second step of this determination of materiality clearly does not require expert testimony, the first step almost as clearly does. … Only a physician (or other qualified expert) is capable of judging what risks exist and their likelihood of occurrence.

State v. Case

Washington Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2016

The stipulation was therefore not narrow enough to establish that the prior convictions were qualifYing convictions. 2. … Under this authority, Case's stipulation was insufficient to establish that he had two qualifying prior convictions. 10 State v.