Case law

Trans West Co. v. Boise Cascade Corp.

14 Wash. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 5, 1975

We find this rule inapplicable in that plaintiff does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice of the facts which would estop his predecessors in this action against defendant. … The difficulty with plaintiff’s position is that the record title does not clearly establish that defendant did not have a 25-year right to the timber in question.

Messer v. Department of Labor & Industries

118 Wash. App. 635 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 8, 2003

At the hearing, the Department provided testimony establishing that Table C is based upon the Department’s actual experience with mortality rates of injured workers in Washington. … The Auman court clearly held that a claimant is not “entitled” to COLA increases on a portion of the OAR amount that must be deducted. Auman, 110 Wn.2d at 920 .

State v. Lass

55 Wash. App. 300 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 15, 1989

Tillett was qualified to state the check was not filled out in his handwriting. Therefore, the check had the requisite indicia of reliability necessary to show the circuitous route the truck took. … Here, the evidence established a truck was taken in Spokane *306 without the owner's permission; Mr.

Malyon v. Pierce County

79 Wash. App. 452 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 10, 1995

establishment.” … of expressly religious benefits primarily to those who would be inclined to seek the guidance of a Baptist minister. 77 The court also found that the contract threatened excessive entanglement with religion by failing to clearly

Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 21, 2019

Under the last antecedent rule, qualifying or modifying words or phrases refer to the last antecedent. State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 578, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). … Thus, the regulations treating individuals with pre-CAPTA and post CAPTA findings of abuse differently are clearly statutorily authorized.

State v. Lillard

122 Wash. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 2004

Evidence at trial clearly established that Lillard possessed the property. … statement” as an “oral or written assertion or . . . nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” 29 Out-of-court statements offered for a purpose other than the truth asserted do not qualify

State v. Winterstein

140 Wash. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 11, 2007

. ¶12 Soderlind agreed to testify at Winterstein’s trial after receiving immunity from further prosecution. … The State bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement. State v.

State v. Hyder

159 Wash. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 4, 2011

Whether the Sentence Is Clearly Excessive ¶64 Finally, we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a clearly excessive sentence. 88 In Hale we held that the trial court’s imposition of an exceptional … Corp. of the Catholic Bishop, 138 Wn.2d 699, 717 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999) (“Where childhood sexual abuse is at issue, even long established privileges do not apply”).

In Re Dependency of TJB

62 P.3d 891 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 9, 2003

He claims he qualifies under the latter two criteria, and does not argue the first. … Brown did not deny that this incident occurred, and a child wandering unsupervised by the roadway clearly poses the potential for physical harm to the child.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

160 Wash. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 13, 2011

A hearings board does “not have jurisdiction to decide challenges to site-specific land use decisions because site-specific land use decisions do not qualify as comprehensive plans or development regulations.” Woods v. … And clearly it is. The challenged action was in fact legislative; it involved an amendment to a comprehensive plan. See Coffey, 145 Wn.

State v. Yarbrough

210 P.3d 1029 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 30, 2009

Although Dudley could see that someone was holding a gun, he could not clearly see who that person was. … And Ringer's testimony was "otherwise admissible" because he was clearly qualified as a gang expert given his extensive training and years of experience and his testimony was helpful to the jury as it provided the context

In Re The Detention Of L.K.

471 P.3d 975 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 1, 2020

The Supreme Court held that in determining whether the State had adequately protected a person’s rights, courts must show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified professional, particularly when it came to a determination … As discussed above, former RCW 71.05.215(2)(a) and former RCW 71.05.217(7)(b) clearly require the State to attempt to obtain informed consent before involuntarily administering psychotropic medications.

In Re T.c.

450 P.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 28, 2019

T.C. testified that he "was one of two building inspectors that was qualified for the Federal Emergency Management Administration to do work on the First Avenue courthouse when it was rebuilt in 1999." … This argument has been rejected by the court numerous times and we find no reason to depart from well-established 7 No. 78222-3-1/8 precedent.

Grant v. Boccia

137 P.3d 20 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 6, 2006

A witness qualified as an expert may testify on the basis of "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" if the testimony "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue … CP at 592, 593.); FREDERICK WOLFE, POST-TRAUMATIC FIBROMYALGIA: A CASE REPORT NARRATED BY THE PATIENT (1994) (stating "there is no clearly agreed upon mechanism by which an injury could cause fibromyalgia."

Verbeek Properties, LLC v. GreenCo Environmental, Inc.

159 Wash. App. 82 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2010

This court may affirm the trial court’s ultimate decision on any grounds established by the pleadings and supported by the record. Otis Hous. … The summary resolution of factual disputes under *91 this statute is “confined to the limited group of cases where the lien claim is clearly meritless.” S.D. Deacon Corp. of Wash. v. Gaston Bros. Excavating, 150 Wn.

State v. Smissaert

41 Wash. App. 813 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 1985

Smith's testimony was necessary to establish the proposition that because of his intoxication he could not formulate the necessary intent to commit the burglary. [1] The admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion … Alexis, supra , we clearly rejected any per se rule for the admissibility of prior conviction evidence. ER 609(a)(1) requires the exercise of discretion.

Richmond v. Thompson

79 Wash. App. 327 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 11, 1995

Thompson contends the evidence does not establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Dr. … The testimony of Trooper Richmond, Hanson, and Hanson’s passenger, Hahler, clearly and convincingly establish that nothing of the sort occurred. This fact, coupled with Dr.

Grey v. Leach

244 P.3d 970 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 13, 2010

(3) "by any act or omission, caused or contributed to the release *974 or threatened release of a hazardous substance at the facility." [13] Only the third limitation is at issue here. ¶ 14 The Leaches contend that they qualify … on the unexpressed subjective intent of the parties." [25] Clear and unambiguous contracts are enforced as written. [26] Words used in a contract are given their ordinary, usual, and popular meaning unless the agreement clearly

Vonage America, Inc. v. City of Seattle

216 P.3d 1029 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 3, 2009

City of Seattle, 164 Wash.2d 35 , 186 P.3d 1032 (2008), which held that Comcast's broadband cable modem business qualified as an Internet service, exempt from tax under the moratorium. … 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

State v. Lillard

93 P.3d 969 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 2004

Evidence at trial clearly established that Lillard possessed the property. … statement" as an "oral or written assertion or ... nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion." [29] Out-of-court statements offered for a purpose other than the truth asserted do not qualify