Case law

State v. King

24 Wash. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 23, 1979

For that reason, Norby is not, in our opinion, persuasive in this case where there clearly is no evidence of the effect of the drinking on defendant’s mental processes. … The decision to file an affidavit of prejudice is clearly a matter of strategy. Nothing in the record suggests that there was reason to ask for a change of judge.

Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island

223 P.3d 1172 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 8, 2009

Non-SEPA Claims ¶ 18 "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to obtaining a decision that qualifies as a decision reviewable under LUPA." Stanzel v. … Both Verizon and the City qualify as prevailing parties.

In Re The Parentage Of L.j.m.

476 P.3d 636 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 24, 2020

To establish standing, a petitioner must only allege sufficient facts to satisfy the statutory requirement. … Bergsieker’s petition clearly alleges that he has undertaken “full” parental responsibilities.

Starr v. Employment Security Department

130 Wash. App. 541 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 22, 2005

“Good Cause” Under RCW 50.20.050 ¶15 Starr argues that RCW 50.20.050(2)(b) does not establish an exclusive list of nondisqualifying circumstances. … This subsection contains no additional open-ended circumstance of any type; and it clearly contains no general category entitled “compelling personal reasons,” as Starr would have us read into the statute. ¶19 On the contrary

Marashi v. Lannen

55 Wash. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 26, 1989

The Lannens claim the statement of business purpose in the borrower's certificate conclusively establishes the loan comes within the business exception. … In Brown , the court considered the borrower's oral representations to the broker, which did not clearly show that the purpose of the loan was personal, then considered statements contained in the loan documents themselves

State v. Carter

74 Wash. App. 320 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 23, 1994

As the Salvucci Court observed, the question of whether incriminating statements made in a suppression hearing may be used as impeachment is quite different from the one of whether 'use immunity’ extends only through the … Carter clearly was not an overnight guest, and her short-term presence in the room establishes nothing more than "legitimate presence”.

Yuri Prostov, App. v. Wa State Department Of Licensing, Res.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 6, 2015

Laurie Provoe's uncontested testimony established that a paper application to renew a driver's license is not required. … A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. RCW 4.84.350(1).

CalPortland Co. v. LevelOne Concrete, LLC

180 Wash. App. 379 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 25, 2014

Ferguson correctly argues that the statute’s language clearly establishes its meaning and that this court should therefore not engage in statutory interpretation. … In fact, the plain terms of the statute rendered Costco’s property immune from “any action brought to recover the amount claimed” by CalPortland. RCW 60.04.161.

State v. Olson

19 Wash. App. 885 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 27, 1978

direct witness or independent evidence of corroborating circumstances of such a character as clearly to turn the scale and overcome the oath of the defendant and the legal presumption of his innocence. … Do you have any knowledge of law enforcement officers being paid by operators of gambling establishments? A. No. I do not.

Reed Taylor, App. v. Scott Bell And Jane Doe Bell, Res.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 29, 2014

Ortiz. 119 Wn.2d 294, 310, 831 P.2d 1060 (1992) ("Practical experience is sufficient to qualify a witness as an expert.") … It's a different question about whether it's admissible under Idaho law. 18 This well-established and well-regarded organization publishes reports on various aspects of opinion practice.

State v. We

158 P.3d 1238 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2007

We must establish both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 334-35 , 899 P.2d 1251 . … He certainly was not then qualified to testify as an expert on financial motivation. See id.

State v. Jones

59 Wash. App. 744 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 10, 1990

The well-established rule in Washington is that the trial court's reasons for imposing a sentence outside the standard range must take into account factors other than those which are necessarily considered in determining … In sum, the trial court's reason for imposing an exceptional sentence is supported by the record and not "clearly erroneous". See State v. McAlpin, 108 Wn.2d 458, 462 , 740 P.2d 824 (1987).

Smith v. Skone & Connors Produce, Inc.

26 P.3d 981 · 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.

Wells v. Whatcom County Water Dist. No. 10

19 P.3d 453 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 5, 2001

First, the information Wells and WDF rely on to argue that the District must prepare an SEIS does not qualify as "new information" under the SEPA regulations. … While his comment about compensation was unnecessary, it was made in the context of a CUP criterion and clearly did not influence his evaluation of that factor.

Lenhoff v. Birch Bay Real Estate, Inc.

22 Wash. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 4, 1978

Turner established her dwelling upon the lot in question. The structure consists of two modules brought to the site and placed on a foundation, and includes a basement constructed at the site. … Turner also argued that the phrase ”but that all construction must be of new construction," (italics ours) is a qualifying phrase limiting the buildings or structures which may not be moved in or set upon the property, and

State v. Bennett

36 Wash. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 5, 1983

If the existence of the plan makes it more probable that the defendant had *180 sexual intercourse with victims 1 and 2, then the first step toward admissibility is established. … were not declarations, we •need not speculate on the kinds of assertive, nonverbal, nonwritten conduct which conceivably could qualify under the statute.

State v. Bertrand

165 Wash. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 8, 2011

Bertrand having failed to identify how the challenged instruction implicates a constitutional right, she fails to meet the first part of the test to qualify for the RAP 2.5(a)(3) exception. … Here, in contrast with the disputed facts in Bashaw, the evidence establishing distance was uncontroverted; moreover, it was supported by competent physical evidence and testimonial evidence, not mere speculation, as was

State v. Reed

6 P.3d 43 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 7, 2000

Indeed, our recognition of a surveillance location privilege is built upon the established informer's privilege, Roviaro v. … The public policy arguments advanced by the State in support of establishing a "surveillance location privilege" are not persuasive.

Wolf v. Boeing Company

61 Wash. App. 316 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 20, 1991

If Boeing can establish that the accident was caused by the actions of Mexicana rather than by a design defect, it would be relieved of all liability. … Boeing's ability to establish such a defense depends upon access to the considerable amount of evidence in Mexico.

Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate Ins. Co., Inc.

223 P.3d 1180 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 6, 2010

CPA Claim ¶ 39 But the record clearly establishes that the trial court erred when it granted Kim's motion for summary judgment. … Moreover, the IME belongs to Allstate and clearly qualifies as its own work product. See Harris v.