Case law

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.”

Williams v. McCauley

7 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1940

it is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be permitted to perform the functions of an appeal or writ of error to review the errors or irregularities of a court of competent jurisdiction, it is equally well established … view that, when a *6 court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of the defendant, its judgment was conclusive on habeas corpus . . . , it is now generally conceded that, in order to render a judgment immune

State v. Rinaldo

102 Wash. 2d 749 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1984

Stewart would hold that when a reporter is asked to appear before a grand jury and reveal confidential information, the government must (1) show that there is probable cause to believe that the newsman has information that is clearly … The four fundamental conditions necessary to establish such a privilege are: (1) the communication must originate in a confidence that it will not be disclosed; (2) the element of confidentiality must be essential to the

Santmeyer v. Clemmancs

147 Wash. 354 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1928

February 4, 1926, the will was duly probated and Rose Alice Santmeyer, the plaintiff, qualified as executrix;. … The burden was upon the defendants to establish adverse possession for more than ten years. Skansi v. Novak, 84 Wash. 39 , 146 Pac. 160 , supra.

Hanson v. Kittitas Reclamation District

75 Wash. 297 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1913

Clearly, therefore, if the decree is valid, it is conclusive of the questions here suggested. … This clearly did not invalidate the notice.

State v. Forbes

74 Wash. 2d 420 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1968

It was established that two ex-felons, Edwards and Hammons, had posed as Haney and passed the checks. … such incompetence appears affirmatively on review so clearly as to show that the accused was thereby deprived of a constitutionally fair trial.

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).

Mills v. Orcas Power & Light Co.

56 Wash. 2d 807 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1960

To subject the operator to a lawsuit for every landing without damage, would make a mockery of the law. 8 Thus, Congress has established highways through the air just as it has established water highways in navigable streams … Clearly, an adequate approach way is as necessary a part of an airport as is the ground on which the airstrip, itself, is constructed . . .

Andrews v. Kelleher

124 Wash. 517 · Washington Supreme Court · May 3, 1923

Kelleher' became the duly qualified and acting sole executor thereof and has so remained ever since. … , in order to become an established claim against the estate, was held by this court in Barto v.

McKillip v. Grays Harbor Publishing Co.

100 Wash. 657 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1918

. *663 The article clearly charges the appellant with moral delinquency. The charge, in effect, is that he unlawfully lied about an honorable opponent. To a man of normal sensibilities this is a most grievous charge. … The court further said, speaking of § 2430, that it ‘ ‘ affords no immunity to a publisher of a newspaper for the publication of a matter libelous per se different from that which it affords to any other person,” and that

Snohomish Iron Works v. Guhr Lumber Co.

57 Wash. 381 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1910

The receiver qualified and took into his possession all property of the corporation, including certain teams and a logging outfit which had previously belonged to one Otto Olson.' … This finding shows clearly that there was at most but an executory contract of sale at the time the mortgages were given.

State Ex Rel. Robinson v. Superior Court

182 Wash. 277 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1935

If it is not an action against the state, then the rule of immunity does not apply. … Clearly we think such a suit, even though brought against its officer, must in effect be a suit against the state.” In State v.

Smith v. Ferry

43 Wash. 460 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1906

He qualified as snch and entered upon the discharge of his duties. What he has done since, that time doe's not appear. … On Deeeember 28, 1905, the respondent entered upon the lot and established her residence there, and on the same day made her declaration of homestead, and on the following day duly recorded said declaration.

Murphy v. City of Spokane

64 Wash. 681 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1911

This sinking fund proposition is then attacked upon the ground that there is no authority in the city to establish or create such a fund. … This rule is well established by the authorities, and has received recognition in this court in Seymour v.

State v. Hunter

183 Wash. 143 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1935

Appellant, of course, had the right to ask on the voir dire such questions as would enable him to determine from the answers thereto whether or not the state of mind of the prospective juror was such as would qualify him … The first part of the inquiry was clearly proper. It cannot be held that the latter portion was improper.

Ettor v. City of Tacoma

57 Wash. 50 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1910

The power to establish grades is incident to its charter, and is implied from the dedication. It was so held in Fletcher v. … The company claimed immunity from damages under its original grant of a right of way, and a subsequent act of the legislature. The state court held with the company.

Davis v. Microsoft Corp.

70 P.3d 126 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 5, 2003

As a matter of law, Davis failed to establish the second element *134 of his prima facie case—that he "was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question." Hill, 144 Wash.2d at 193 , 23 P.3d 440 . … Davis failed to establish the second element of his prima facie case—that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question.

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

161 Wash. 2d 415 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2007

RCW 36.70A.020. ¶11 The lack of priority in the planning goals becomes especially problematic when local governments are faced with land that qualifies as both agricultural land and as a critical area (for example, a parcel … The “No Harm” Standard ¶14 Riparian farmland in Skagit County qualifies as both “agricultural land” and “critical areas” under the GMA. See RCW 36.70A.030(2), (5).

Joyce v. State, Dept. of Corrections

119 P.3d 825 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 2005

Another case is not relevant to our analysis because it determined whether a state agent had qualified immunity from suit, not whether a duty existed. See Savage v. … State, 127 Wash.2d 434 , 899 P.2d 1270 (1995) (holding that even though a parole officer may enjoy qualified immunity, it did not extend to the government). [3] We respectfully disagree with the concurrence/dissent's characterization