Case law

State v. Stephan

35 Wash. App. 889 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 31, 1983

Stephan attempted to present his limited involvement in the activities, the court asked if he was qualifying his statement. Mr. … Applying these rules, we hold the language quoted above refers to RCW 9A.04 through 9A.16, which defines terms, limits actions, establishes culpability and capacity, sets the standard of proof, establishes defenses, etc.

Colton & Cheryl Behr v. Dr. Christopher G. Anderson

491 P.3d 189 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2021

“The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce an affidavit from a qualified expert witness that alleges specific facts establishing a cause of action.” Id. This court reviews a summary judgment ruling de novo. … does not clearly reflect such determination.

State v. Olson

74 Wash. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 18, 1994

The notice of appeal clearly states what is intended, the brief was sufficient for Olson to respond, and he has responded. … The most commonsense interpretation of this experience is that the affidavit contained sufficient information for the magistrate to infer that Detective Brossard was qualified to identify both growing and burning marijuana

Tye Sheats v. City of East Wenatchee

431 P.3d 489 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 11, 2018

But when an agency elects to disseminate exempt records in response to a PRA request, a person seeking to enjoin dissemination has a heavy burden, which includes establishing that dissemination of the record would clearly … The public has an interest in knowing if a current peace officer is a law abiding person.3 Officer Sheats is unable to establish that dissemination of his redacted polygraph report would clearly not be in the public’s interest

Murray v. Amrine

28 Wash. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 20, 1981

The court also refused to give defendant's proposed instruction requiring the jury to find him guilty of gross negligence to establish liability. … State, 84 Wn.2d 959, 962-64 , 530 P.2d 630 (1975), Hammack and Nogosek are distinguishable in that both dealt with statutory abolition of a prior statutory immunity or defense.

El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin County Public Utility District

8 Wash. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 6, 1972

The time for such filing was extended from *32 90 days, established for second-class cities, to a 1-year limitation for those “districts” which are specifically enumerated in RCW 53.52.010. … Section 1 thereof specifically states the legislative intent to waive governmental immunity for tort claims against any state government agency or its subdivisions.

Carlton Evans & Margaret Evans v. Spokane County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 5, 2020

Alternatively, it ruled that the qualified nature of the duty—that a clear zone be created where its creation is practical and feasible—meant that legislative and discretionary immunity would apply. … Claims of immunity present an issue of law that we review de novo. Cf. Feis v. King County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 165 Wn. App. 525, 538, 267 P.3d 1022 (2011) (qualified immunity).

State v. Ayala

31 P.3d 58 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 18, 2001

Without clearly articulating the basis for his claim, Mr. Ayala urges an equal protection violation in the charging decision. … "All facts tending to establish a theory of a party, or to qualify or disprove the testimony of his adversary, are relevant." Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Constr.

Littlejohn Construction Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries

74 Wash. App. 420 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 31, 1994

In Greenleaf , a subcontractor’s employee brought a third party suit against the prime contractor, which asserted the immunity of an employer. … Because the work of the framing crew members was done pursuant to a contract between their employers (the crew leads) and Littlejohn, their work clearly is covered by the statute.

Schumacher v. Williams

107 Wash. App. 793 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 6, 2001

It is not necessary for these beneficiaries to establish financial dependence on the deceased. … App. at 819 (scope of statute protects only beneficiaries clearly contemplated by the statute).

State v. France

120 P.3d 654 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 4, 2005

Instead he asked questions designed to obtain an admission from France that he knew about the no-contact order, an element of the crime charged that is most clearly established by a defendant's admission. … We should have qualified it by stating that based on the record presented to us on appeal, "other than France's tainted confession of his knowledge of the no-contact order, the State presented no evidence France knew of the

Gross v. Sunding

139 Wash. App. 54 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 16, 2007

The documentation provided by Gross clearly states, “ABC Legal Services, Inc. is unable to serve the defendants)” as late as June 9, 2005. … Only one of the qualifying grounds is needed for denial. Pelton v. Tri-State Mem’l Hosp., 66 Wn. App. 350, 356 , 831 P.2d 1147 (1992).

State v. McGary

122 Wash. App. 308 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 7, 2004

Additionally, the first, third, and fourth degree criminal mistreatment statutes clearly require that the State prove withholding of any of the basic necessities of life. … A corollary to that rule is that “the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents *314 instead of only the immediately preceding one.”

Fair Price House Moving Co. v. Pacleb

42 Wash. App. 813 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1986

Assuming that Galer and LaBelle would other *817 wise qualify as the Paclebs' agents for establishing the statutory lien, the evidence in the submitted documents is that Galer and LaBelle were not registered in compliance … The statute will not be extended to benefit those who do not come clearly within its terms. Fair Price has not met its burden of establishing a lien. Northlake Concrete, at 813.

Johnson v. Mobile Crane Co.

1 Wash. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 31, 1969

These were cases where the facts clearly supported the conclusion that plaintiffs’ knowledge of the dangers resulting in their injuries equaled that of the defendants. … The records contained opinions, upon which other persons qualified to make the same record might have differed, and did not relate solely to an act, condition or event. These matters were properly excluded. Young v.

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Lee

205 P.3d 979 · 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.

Frank v. McClanahan

146 Wash. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 5, 2008

There is some evidence that Kenneth and Catherine established the Foundation for the tax benefits. … This proposition is clearly supported by a leading ademption case, Buder v.

Kuest v. Regent Assisted Living, Inc.

111 Wash. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 25, 2002

person from outside the protected class. 9 The employee alleging discrimination must establish specific and material facts to support each element of his or her prima facie case. 10 If a prima facie case is established, … The terms (or offer) in the employment contract clearly excluded the policy as part of the original employment contract, thus anticipating its existence.

State v. Spencer

128 Wash. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 20, 2005

Spencer claims that the legislature expressed its intent clearly when it provided that an assaultive violation of a no-contact order should be elevated to a class C felony. … But Spencer would not have qualified for the greater earned early-release time even without the finding of domestic violence.

Buell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

14 Wash. App. 742 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 8, 1976

When the facts of a given case warrant, the “odd lot” doctrine should be spelled out clearly. … The law of the case, as enunciated by the trial court’s unchallenged instruction, establishes that Mrs.