Case law

State v. Smith

30 Wash. App. 251 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 1981

It is clear that the witness qualifies on both those counts, . . . … She argues that this was clearly improper and compromised her right to remain silent.

Freedom Foundation v. Department of Transportation

168 Wash. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 10, 2012

There, our Supreme Court addressed another federal regulation addressing different privacy protections, 12 but Ameriquest establishes the rule that federal regulations with their enabling statutes qualify as “other statute … “medical information” only, and not qualifying “test results.” 49 U.S.C. § 5331 (d)(7); see Am.

K.m.p., Et Ano. v. Big Brothers Big Sisters Of Puget Sound

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 22, 2021

Public policy clearly supports that caregivers report allegations of child abuse to law enforcement. … sufficient to establish actual malice.

B & R Sales, Inc. v. Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 10, 2015

as workers under the former RCW 51. 08. 180 ( 1991) but did qualify as workers under the version of RCW 51. 08. 180 effective June 12, 2008. … The evidence established that the couple was retained to do the work because they owned a donkey engine, and that they could not have performed the contract without the donkey engine. Id.

Beard v. King County

76 Wash. App. 863 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 13, 1995

[Aldministrative remedies must be exhausted before the courts will intervene: (1) "when a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an agency alone”; (2) when the agency’s authority " 'establishes clearly defined machinery … The fact that the Sheriff allegedly verbally informed Sowers and Beard that they would not be considered for promotion when no application had been made does not clearly establish the futility of presenting his office with

State v. Ish

208 P.3d 1281 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 2009

. ¶ 16 Second, the State sought to establish that in his plea agreement, Otterson promised to testify truthfully. … Recklessness also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. Clerk's Papers at 109 (emphasis added).

Jeremy Gibson v. American Construction Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 26, 2017

Under the LHWCA, payments are made to the qualified maritime worker regardless of employer fault. 33 U.S.C. § 904(b). … In exchange for scheduled benefits for the worker, the employer is immune from a lawsuit for the injury. 33 U.S.C. § 905(a).

In Re the Estate of Long

82 Wash. App. 609 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 1996

In Newman, Leo Newman’s will established a trust for his wife. Newman, 40 Cal. Rptr. at 786. … If Thomas had intended an automatic, de jure distribution, he need not have qualified "distribution” with the adjective "complete distribution.”

In re the Personal Restraint of Dutcher

114 Wash. App. 755 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 30, 2002

But the statute clearly contemplates that such decisions will be based on the merits of a release plan, and nowhere offers any authority for dispensing with such plans altogether. … its early release decisions based upon plans proposed by inmates and reviewed by the department, and has (we *766 believe wisely) not authorized any exemption from this process simply because ESRC believes the offender qualifies

Vonage America, Inc. v. City of Seattle

152 Wash. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 6, 2009

Because of the bundled nature of Vonage’s records, it is clearly difficult for the company to provide this information after the service has occurred, but the Code places the burden on the taxpayer to establish the correct … And the hearing examiner here acknowledged, “[I]t is clearly difficult for [Vonage] to provide this information.”

Hutson v. Wenatchee Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

22 Wash. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 5, 1978

We believe that this evidence was sufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a prima facie case of implied contract sufficient to take the case to the jury. … The insurer's name shall be clearly shown in the policy. "(b) The subject of the insurance. "(c) The risk insured against.

State v. Ish

150 Wash. App. 775 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 2009

. ¶16 Second, the State sought to establish that in his plea agreement, Otterson promised to testify truthfully. … In Green, the witness testified under an immunity agreement that required the witness to “ ‘testify truthfully’ ” with the stated purpose of “ ‘securing] the true and accurate testimony’ ” of the witness. Green, 119 Wn.

Hagemann v. Worth

56 Wash. App. 85 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 28, 1989

One of the property owners testified this action was brought to prevent other businesses from being established within the plat. … They argue they are agents for the state in providing services to the elderly; the amount received on a "private pay" basis *90 roughly approximates what they would receive from the state for residents who qualify for state

Fey v. State

174 Wash. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 18, 2013

. ¶2 Although the district assigns error to dozens of trial court rulings, we agree with its principal contention: the evidence presented by the parties established, as a matter of law, that it was an essential function of … Fey’s reasonable accommodation claim, the district’s evidence clearly bore on his damage claim. See *454 Muntin v. State of Cal.

Schwarzmann v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners

33 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 15, 1982

There must be evidence adequately establishing that the underlying motive for the interferor's breach involved considerations outside the scope of obligations under an existing agreement. Cherberg , at 605. … As for plaintiffs' claim of negligent infliction of emo *405 tional distress, this case is clearly not within the guidelines of the leading Washington cases. In Hunsley v.

Bremerton Public Safety Ass'n v. City of Bremerton

15 P.3d 688 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 12, 2001

But "eligible" means "qualified." WEBSTER'S II COLLEGE DICTIONARY (1999), at 365. … And, as stated above, "otherwise eligible" means "otherwise qualified."

Gahagan v. Department of Licensing

59 Wash. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 3, 1990

You further have the right to take one or more tests administered by a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of your choosing and at your own expense. … Grosse, A.C.J., and Webster, J., concur. 1 The court erroneously relied on Bartels to find that the burden was on the State to establish there was no prejudice.

Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc., V. Dept. Of Revenue

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 21, 2023

Additionally, administrative rules cannot “expand tax immunity beyond the exemptions provided by statute or required by the state and federal constitutions.” Id. at 229. … No. 57108-1-II property to qualify as a speculative builder.” Id. at 228; see also id. at 228 n.6.

Wright v. Mead School Dist. No. 354

944 P.2d 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 2, 1997

An appellate court reviews factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, and issues of law de novo. Id. at 109 , 720 P.2d 793 . … The court further stated that to find the conduct was not grounds for dismissal would operate to immunize an individual who managed to hide his past conduct prior to hiring. Id.

State v. Groth

163 Wash. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 12, 2011

and bars patterned shoes was with Diana when she was stabbed but still ambulatory, that only one person made those prints, and that the prints were consistent with Groth’s footwear. ¶51 Groth argues the evidence points as clearly … Va. 1999) (failure to follow “established procedures” that were “clear and unambiguous” is probative evidence of bad faith but does not “ipso facto establish bad faith”); United States v. Montgomery, 676 F.