Case law

State v. Davis

47 Wash. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 9, 1987

With the burden of proof on Davis to establish the unconstitutionality of the pleas, his recourse is to pursue the usual channels provided for post-conviction relief, and, if successful, request resentencing. … The court held that of the four mitigating circumstances alleged by Armstrong, " [olnly the fourth factor arguably qualifies as a mitigating *97 circumstance but in any event, it clearly is outweighed by the fact that Armstrong

State v. Sanchez

42 Wash. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 3, 1985

RCW 46.20.308(1) requires that an arresting officer shall inform the arrestee that he has a right to an additional alcohol test by a qualified person of his choosing. … Further, he argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to establish causation of the accident by intoxication.

Delivery Express, Inc. v. Wash. State Dep't of Labor & Indus.

442 P.3d 637 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 2019

Under this approach, any small passenger car or even a motorcycle would qualify. … DEI failed to establish that any of these drivers, with the exception of two, operated trucks and failed to establish that these two drivers leased their vehicles to DEI.

State v. Mendez

56 Wash. App. 458 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 27, 1989

motion to withdraw, while no findings of fact and conclusions of law were entered, the trial court did state the following on the record: The interpreter wasn't used because it was obvious to everybody that the defendant clearly … Sandoval has not met his burden of establishing the involuntary nature of his plea.

State v. Grant

172 Wash. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 24, 2012

Grant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of the statutory elements, and the record establishes it was ample. … intentionally abducts another need do so only with the intent to carry out one of the incidents enumerated in RCW 9A.40-,020(l)(a) through (e) inclusive; not that the perpetrator actually bring about or complete one of those qualifying

Rose v. Department of Labor & Industries

57 Wash. App. 751 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 4, 1990

The Board concluded that the value of room and board received by Rose as a prisoner did not qualify as "other consideration," as that term is defined in RCW 51.08.178, but was merely an incident to his confinement and, therefore … Consequently, it is immaterial whether the $1 per day was given as an incentive or other form of compensation, because it clearly constituted consideration for the work performed.

Merino v. State

179 Wash. App. 889 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 11, 2014

I, § 15, his disability compensation qualifies as an “estate,” which cannot be forfeited based on a felony conviction. … Because of the remedial purpose of such statutes ... a forfeiture or waiver of [disability] pension rights should be found only where clearly intended by the parties.’ ” Newlun, 53 Wn.

Floyd Scott, V. American Express National Bank

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 26, 2022

If a law firm’s primary purpose is the collection of consumer debts, it may qualify as a collection agency under the WCAA. Mandelas v. Gordon, 785 F. … All five elements must be established for a CPA claim to be successful. Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 Wn.2d 339, 350, 449 P.3d 1040 (2019).

Roeber v. Dowty Aerospace Yakima

116 Wash. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 11, 2003

Even so, he clearly felt overwhelmed by the stress of deadlines and the long hours expected from management. … He shows neither that he was qualified for a vacant position nor that Dowty failed to notify him of job opportunities that would accommodate his *699 alleged disability. Id. at 643-44, 9 P.3d 787 ; Wilson v.

In re the Detention of Durbin

160 Wash. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 2011

that Durbin met the criteria for commitment as an SVP. f 8 On an ex parte finding of probable cause, the State transferred Durbin to the Thurston County jail and, on September 30, 2004, Durbin stipulated that the petition established … Thus, the legislature clearly intended that the 2009 amendments apply to individuals in Durbin’s position, i.e., individuals awaiting commitment under chapter 71.09 RCW and confined in a secure facility such as the SCC.

Willman v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission

122 Wash. App. 194 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 2004

Rather, it merely establishes that a utility presumptively demonstrates that a rate increase to recover a tax is just and reasonable unless it is clearly invalid. … At best, the petitioners have established the validity of the Nation’s franchise fee is questionable. However, on the limited record before the WUTC and us, it is not possible to conclude the fee is clearly invalid.

Smith v. Skone & Connors Produce, Inc.

107 Wash. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 2001

Smith did not sign the statements nor any other document signifying final settlement, but neither did he object to the clearly final terms of the account. … Smith contends the parties established a $65 per ton packing charge in their two previous years of agreements.

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Lee

149 Wash. App. 866 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 27, 2009

The fact that these problems were not clearly “manifest” at the time of the industrial injury does not eliminate second injury fund relief because his disabilities were permanent and manifested repeatedly over a period of … The disability must have clearly detracted from an individual’s ability to engage in the ordinary pursuits of life.

Korte v. Department of Employment Security

47 Wash. App. 296 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 25, 1987

The proposed contract required medical evidence of illness to qualify for paid sick leave. Korte testified this had *299 not been required in the past. … The facts being virtually undisputed, this issue must be decided as an issue of law, that is, proper application of the law to established facts.

In Re Custody of Afj

251 P.3d 276 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 16, 2011

foster parents from qualifying as de facto parents. … One social worker noted that A.F.J. had "clearly developed a primary attachment to [Franklin] as his parent."

Diane Perillo And Ted Perillo v. Island County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 30, 2020

ICPH told him the property had an established history of “drug activity” but no record of drug “manufacturing.” … The Perillos are innocent purchasers of a contaminated property and clearly within the class of people that chapter 64.44 RCW protects.

State v. Booth

36 Wash. App. 66 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 10, 1983

Upon examining the bailiff's statements alone, we cannot say they qualify as innocuous or neutral. Rather, there is a strong likelihood the statements were influential and prejudiced the jury's verdict. … Clearly, the bailiff's statements constituted error. However, on appeal, such errors do not require reversal if they are harmless.

Schoening v. Grays Harbor Community Hospital

40 Wash. App. 331 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 29, 1985

Under the cases cited, the hospital clearly has a duty to intervene in the treatment of its patients if there is obvious negligence. According to Dr. … Affidavits of qualified experts are sufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether the standard of care has been met. LeBeuf v. Atkins, 28 Wn.

Linda Nestor, Apps/cross-resps V. State Of Washington, Resp/cross-app

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 1, 2024

“In order for a decision to qualify as discretionary, the State must show that the decision was the outcome of a conscious balancing of risks and advantages. … Without a policy decision by a high-level executive, the State cannot establish an entitlement to discretionary immunity. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment on this ground.

State v. Thomas

144 P.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 13, 2006

Ross is controlling precedent and clearly provides that under these circumstances, Thomas waived his right to challenge the comparability of his California conviction for receiving stolen property. … The issue in Ortega was whether a prior Texas conviction for second degree indecency with a child was comparable to a qualifying Washington "strike" offense that required the child victim be under 12 years old.