Case law

Boring v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

97 P.3d 51 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 13, 2004

However, a discharge of an at-will employee is wrongful if done in violation of a clearly articulated public policy. Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wash.2d 219, 232 , 685 P.2d 1081 (1984). … Schuttloffel, 27 P.3d 361, 367 (Colo.2001), the primary purpose of the act is to "promote air safety through the hiring of qualified pilots."

Terry Brink, Inc. v. Airheart

16 Wash. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 15, 1976

Words used in a contract must be given .their ordinary meaning unless a different meaning is clearly intended. Wasser & Winters Co. v. Jefferson County, 84 Wn.2d 597 , 528 P.2d 471 (1974). … Airheart’s activities did not contractually qualify Brink for a commission under the exclusive listing agreement or the cancellation agreement.

Shannon Kries et vir v. WA-SPOK Primary Care, LLC

190 Wash. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 10, 2015

Riedo’s testimony alone establishes a factual question, but inconsistencies in the testimony of Women’s Clinic’s witness also establish a question of fact. ¶50 Expert opinion on contract interpretation is usually inadmissible … An accommodation is reasonable only if its cost is not clearly disproportionate. Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 1997).

State v. Powers

124 Wash. App. 92 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 2, 2004

Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition — for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing. … nowhere is it a call for help (i.e., Moscat and Leavitt). 4 The trial judge characterized her call as an excited utterance. *101 But despite this characterization, based on indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, Crawford clearly

Winfrey v. Rocket Research Co.

58 Wash. App. 722 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 6, 1990

The proof showed that the intensely hazardous 12,500-volt panels were not clearly distinguishable from the low voltage panels. … Expert testimony established that the lack of warning labels distinguishing the high voltage panels was misleading even to an electrician.

Bogomolov v. Lake Villas Condominium Ass'n of Apartment Owners

131 Wash. App. 353 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 30, 2006

. ¶17 The deed clearly states that second-class shorelands were originally conveyed by the State to the original owners of the land in 1917. … Thus, the Declaration does not provide that only the existing numbered boat slips are limited common areas, but rather explains why the existing boat slips qualify as limited common areas.

Unifund Ccr, Llc v. Amy Elyse

195 Wash. App. 110 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2016

Askew, 358 S.W.3d 58, 62-64 (Mo. 2012) (debt buyer's records custodian not qualified to lay foundation for business records rule when custodian had never worked for business that prepared the records and was not familiar … You agree to use your account in No. 73510-1/6 detailed and itemized, constitutes acceptance of terms clearly stated in a cardmember agreement."18 In order to prove Elyse's assent to the terms of the 2010 cardmember

State Of Washington, Respondent/cross v. Thomas Lee Floyd, Appellant/cross-respondent

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 2013

Thus, the phrase " on its face" clearly has a similar meaning in both lines of cases. … Thus, a charging document that fails to clearly set forth e] very material element of the charge" renders the resulting conviction constitutionally invalid. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d at 425.

Campbell v. Reed

134 Wash. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 1, 2006

We hold that because Campbell failed to establish color of title, RCW 7.28.070 and RCW 7.28.080 do not apply. … But the court qualified this assertion: “[Conceding the necessity under the provisions of our statute, to show color of title on the part of the respondent in this case,—a question upon which we do not now pass,—it seems

State Of Washington v. Evergreen Freedom Foundation

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 7, 2017

The initiative processes at each level are established by state law and involve somewhat different requirements. … But as our interpretation above establishes, RCW 42.17A.005(4) presents a single, clearly delineated definition for what constitutes a “ballot proposition.”

State v. Smith

2 Wash. App. 769 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 25, 1970

To the contrary, the law is established that in considering a person's conduct, membership in one race or another is immaterial. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. … We, therefore, take judicial notice of the fact that the offer on its face was clearly erroneous and if received would have been of no probative value.

State v. Garland

169 Wash. App. 869 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 8, 2012

Although an attorney’s statement may sometimes qualify as an admission of the client when offered against the client, it does not qualify when the attorney is pleading alternatively or inconsistently on the client’s behalf … Counsel should not, except when the truth-seeking purpose clearly demands otherwise, be deterred from legitimate argument by apprehension about arguments made to a jury in an earlier trial.

Campbell v. Reed

139 P.3d 419 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 1, 2006

We hold that because Campbell failed to establish color of title, RCW 7.28.070 and RCW 7.28.080 *421 do not apply. … But the court qualified this assertion, "[c]onceding the necessity under the provisions of our statute, to show color of title on the part of the respondent in this case,— a question upon which we do not now pass, —it seems

State Of Washington, V. Colton Norris Noe

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2023

The key, however, in Phelan was that, while a fundamental liberty right was not implicated, there was a clearly defined class: people serving time in jail before trial. Id. … Here, we first conclude Noe fails to establish that he was treated differently from others who were similarly situated. Osman, 157 Wn.2d at 485.

Abolafya v. State

56 P.3d 608 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 28, 2002

A residential burglary conviction will qualify if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be sexually motivated. … The current attempt to establish the 1993 crime was sexually motivated only enables the State to seek civil commitment.

State v. Fernandez

28 Wash. App. 944 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 5, 1981

We note that the instruction is couched in qualifying terms such as "the crime, if any, of which the defendant is accused". (Italics ours.) … It is not necessary to establish intent by direct and positive evidence but intent may be established by inference and in the same way as any other fact by taking into consideration the acts of the parties and all the facts

White v. Wilhelm

34 Wash. App. 763 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 25, 1983

The trial court concluded: It has not been clearly established that the defendant's lot number 19 is an interior lot, thus bringing into play . . . III.D(2). … The plaintiffs have not established a clear equitable or legal basis which would warrant a mandatory injunction or allow for damages.

State v. Hayward

152 Wash. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 11, 2009

“Evidence is admissible under ER 702 if the witness qualifies as an expert and the expert testimony would be helpful to the jury.” State v. We, 138 Wn. … The question asked just deals clearly with the legal standard. RP (Apr. 8, 2008) at 39-40.

Link v. Link

268 P.3d 963 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2011

The findings on "best interest" drafted by Pamela and entered by the court were not clearly adopted by Tia. Nor, for that matter, do they establish actual detriment. … The error clearly affected Tia's rights in seeking a modification of T.L.'

Whatcom County v. State

99 Wash. App. 237 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 31, 2000

The State argues that Graham’s acts constituted “advice to a county official,” which is clearly a county function. … That case addressed the question of whether the Pennsylvania district attorney’s office is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S.