Case law

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.

In Re Sehome Park Care Center, Inc.

903 P.2d 443 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1995

However, the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents instead of only the immediately preceding one. Judson v. … Here a comma introduced the "but only if" qualifier.

State Ex Rel. Stephens v. Odell

61 Wash. 2d 476 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1963

That restriction, as to population, was imposed by the trial court to insure that the proposed area of incorporation would qualify as a third class city. … Such circumvention of the board’s power should not be permitted unless that result is clearly dictated by the statutes, and we do not find such a mandate within the present statutes.

Quinault Indian Nation v. Imperium Terminal Servs., LLC

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2017

Respondents' projects clearly fall within that broad policy. … This is clearly a transportation activity that "originate[s] or conclude[s]" in Washington's coastal waters. Id.

State v. Thetford

109 Wash. 2d 392 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1987

The court rejected the State's argument that "Agent” was immunized from production as a witness under the informer privilege. … The defense affidavits establish the time of Baker's arrival in Port Townsend in early March.

Guillen v. Pierce County

181 A.L.R. Fed. 741 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2001

Guillen, however, does not qualify, since the statute’s examples of qualifying parties clearly indicate a restricted understanding of “proper interest” that cannot reasonably be construed to include persons involved in entirely … But that ruling was promptly vacated as “clearly wrong.” Id.

In Re the Estate of Perry

168 Wash. 428 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1932

Stewart qualified as executor of Dr. Perry’s will, and letters testamentary thereon were regularly issued. … The laws *436 establishing the different percentages to be paid to the state by way of inheritance taxes afford no analogy whatsoever to the question here presented.

City of Renton v. Dillingham Corp.

79 Wash. 2d 374 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 3, 1971

we must examine the language of RCW 8.25.070, which expressly provides, “the court may award the condemnee reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable expert witness fees actually incurred A plain reading of this provision clearly … Construing the statute in this manner is consistent with the applicable rule of statutory construction which provides that a qualifying *377 or conditioning phrase (i.e., “actually incurred”) relates solely to the last antecedent

State Ex Rel. Brown v. Long

180 Wash. 602 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1935

After reciting considerable matter of circumstantial and testimonial character, the concluding paragraph of the return clearly presents the situation. … Such a plan by which it is thought witnesses may qualify to testify in court would do violence to cherished forms and principles, and be at variance with well-understood fundamental rights.

State v. Hemrich

93 Wash. 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1916

It says: “Every other liquor or liquid,” the word “other” thus qualifying only the words “liquor or liquid” which are subsequently qualified by the words “containing intoxicating properties.” State v. … The admission clearly negatives the idea that it will of itself generate any alcohol whatever. It is not even claimed by the state that it will.

State v. E.J.J.

183 Wash. 2d 497 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2015

Majority at 505-06. *522 But, as discussed, the record clearly establishes E.J.J.’s hindering conduct. 26 ¶41 The majority also contends that E.J.J.’s refusal to close the front door was “so intertwined” with his “protected … But the presence of speech does not immunize unlawful conduct.

Beaver v. Estate of Harris

67 Wash. 2d 621 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1965

The following testimony clearly demonstrates plaintiff’s evidence failed to meet the required burden of proof: Q. Now, Mr. … What constitutes a mutual mistake must be clearly established. There is ample authority holding a mutual mistake must be one involving both parties, a mistake independently made by each party.

State ex rel. Kern v. Jerome

80 Wash. 261 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1914

The disposition to do so clearly appears, and there are heavy doubts-as to the good faith of the reformation.” That decision was rendered in 1887. … ceased the business and pro *267 fessed reformation, the brief time elapsing after the reformation and before trial or other circumstances disclosed were deemed insufficient proof of such repentance as to secure defendants immunity

Bayha v. Public Utility District No. 1

2 Wash. 2d 85 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1939

by a city or town,” the word “none” must refer to “public utility,” as therein qualified, or, in other words, to a public utility owned by a city or town? … other sections, unless the legislative intent that it shall so operate is clearly disclosed.”

McCormick v. Milner Hotels, Inc.

53 Wash. 2d 207 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1958

Smith's testimony is carefully considered, the effect would be to establish a standard of care that would provide complete immunity to hotel and apartment owners when sued by guests or tenants for injuries received by cracked … Hotel and apartment owners are not insurers of their guest's health and safety, but on the other hand they should not be immune from liability where facts are established, as in the case at bar.

Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.

140 Wash. 2d 291 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2000

Federal law under the FLSA clearly prohibits this practice. 29 C.F.R. § 541.118 (a). … If the Legislature chooses to do so, it will have the opportunity to clearly detail the requirements necessary to qualify for that exception.

McClure v. Stretch

20 Wash. 2d 460 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1944

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 … This citation is found under the general heading of “Qualified Privilege.”

Hambleton v. Department of Revenue

181 Wash. 2d 802 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

The amendment allows the Department of Revenue (DOR) to tax qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) as part of a surviving spouse’s estate. … Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process ...” Carlton, 512 U.S. at 33 (second alteration in original).

State Ex Rel. Carr v. Superior Court

190 Wash. 553 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1937

If the petition be found to contain a sufficient number of qualified signatures, the auditor shall so certify to the county commissioners, who shall give notice of a hearing as therein prescribed, and, as provided in § 2 … C. § 7249-12]), amending § 2, Laws of 1929, p. 219, it clearly appears that no such finding was entered as a condition precedent to the formation of the district, as required by § 4, chapter 72, Laws of 1931, p. 229 (Rem.