Case law

The Cooper Point Ass'n v. Thurston County

31 P.3d 28 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 14, 2001

To find an action "clearly erroneous," the Board must be "left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed." Dep't of Ecology v. Pub. Util. Dist. … Thus, the County has not established that the proposed sewer line extension is "necessary."

Clark County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MGT.

254 P.3d 862 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 2011

In addition, like the Growth Board, we defer to the county's planning action unless the action is "clearly erroneous." Brinnon Grp. v. … The Growth Board found that these processes contained no clearly erroneous errors.

Seatac Committee For Good Jobs v. Bf Foods, Llc

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 2014

It is found in Title 35A RCW, the title that allows for the establishment of optional municipal code cities and defines how such cities shall be governed and operated. SeaTac is an optional municipal code city. … They clearly do not fear the popular will—if they did, they would not have granted their residents initiative and referendum powers in the first place.

Dellen Wood Products Inc., App. V Wa State Dept. Of Labor And Industries, Resp.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 25, 2014

To qualify as a self - insured employer, an employer must first establish that it has sufficient financial ability to pay workers' compensation benefits and assessments under … A claimant alleging deprivation of due process must first establish a legitimate claim of entitlement. Haberman v. Wash. Pub.

State Of Washington, App/cross-res. v. Alfred G. Burton, Res./cross-app.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 26, 2016

App. 33, 975 P.2d 1029 (1999), in which Division Three of our court addressed, in the context of a civil suit for false 3 Governor Gregoire vetoed a provision establishing a state registry for qualified patients and … The court in McBride, however, clearly explained that “[t]he self-defense claim did not vitiate probable cause.” Id.

State v. Finkley

6 Wash. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 3, 1972

That question has been resolved: [T]he right of confrontation may not be invoked to exclude evidence otherwise admissible under well-established legitimate exceptions to the hearsay rule. Kay v. … All seven of those pictured appeared to be of a comparable age, with no distinctive features, except that one of them *283 was not clearly a black, as contrasted with Mr. Finkley and the other five persons pictured.

Ruff v. Department of Labor & Industries

107 Wash. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 21, 2001

Unlike the doctor there, DLI clearly argued that the theory of “chronic porphyria” caused by odor-level chemicals present during building remodel lacked general acceptance in the medical community. As such, Dr. … Copeland, 130 Wn.2d at 255 (scientific evidence not admissible under Frye if there is a significant dispute among qualified experts as to its validity). 66 Wn.

State Of Washington v. Scott Jesus Barajas

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 3, 2017

We disagree.6 The Washington Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause provides that “[n]o law shall be passed granting to any citizen . . . privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally … The order clearly states that Barajas was convicted of violation of a domestic violence no-contact order.

Schumacher v. Williams

28 P.3d 792 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 6, 2001

It is not necessary for these beneficiaries to establish financial dependence on the deceased. … It is well established that state law does not work to preempt federal civil rights actions which assert substantive due process violations.

Halleran v. Nu West, Inc.

123 Wash. App. 701 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2004

The public duty doctrine limits the State’s liability despite RCW 4.96.010’s statutory waiver of sovereign immunity in Washington State. … Halleran and Kaleas also claim RCW 21.20.450 establishes a statutory duty to protect investors.

State v. Cleveland

58 Wash. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 30, 1990

Although first developed in civil litigation, collateral estoppel has been an established rule of federal criminal law at least since this Court's decision more than 50 years ago in United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U. … The Dupard court held that estoppel did not apply, stating that the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be qualified or rejected when its application would contravene public policy.

Zunino v. Rajewski

140 Wash. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2007

Similarly, “a ‘deed [of easement] is not required to establish the actual location of an easement, but is required to convey an easement’ which encumb[ers] a specific servient estate.” Id. … App. 375, 382 , 793 P.2d 442 (1990). ¶28 “No particular words are necessary to constitute a grant and any words which clearly show the intention to give an easement are sufficient.” Id. at 379 .

Somsak v. Criton Technologies/Heath Tecna, Inc.

113 Wash. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 19, 2002

Specifically, the superior court excluded testimony from a person not qualified as an expert witness. … Somsak raised the health care benefits issue at this point, but *96 presented no evidence to establish the value of those benefits.

Somsak v. CRITON TECHNOLOGIES

52 P.3d 43 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 19, 2002

Specifically, the superior court excluded testimony from a person not qualified as an expert witness. … Somsak raised the health care benefits issue at this point, but presented no evidence to establish the value of those benefits.

Zunino v. Rajewski

165 P.3d 57 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2007

Similarly, "[a] deed of easement is not required to establish the actual location of an easement, but is required to convey an easement which encumbrances a specific servient estate." Id. … Swerda, 58 Wash.App. 375, 382 , 793 P.2d 442 (1990). ¶ 28 "No particular words are necessary to constitute a grant and any words which clearly show the intention to give an easement are sufficient."

Greenback Beach & Boat Club, Inc. v. Bunney

168 Wash. App. 517 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 29, 2012

. *524 ¶17 Because the lawsuit qualified as a “suit to enjoin the construction,” we affirm the denial of the Bunneys’ motion for summary judgment. … Until the Bunneys lost this lawsuit, there had been no judicial ruling establishing that the homeowners associations were clearly in the right.

Low Income Housing Institute v. City of Lakewood

119 Wash. App. 110 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 9, 2003

whether the record before the Board and its findings establish that the Board decided whether Lakewood’s Plan is consistent with Pierce County’s CPP. … both goals and the specific requirements in determining whether a plan complies with the GMA: *116 The board shall find compliance [with GMA] unless it determines that the action by the state agency, county, or city is clearly

Stegriy v. King County Board of Appeals

39 Wash. App. 346 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 27, 1984

The license inspector's description of the results of his investigation clearly revealed that the gravamen of the complaints was excessive noise. … "A statute will not be construed as taking away the power of a municipality to legislate unless this intent is clearly and expressly stated." State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist.

Robertson v. State Liquor Control Bd.

10 P.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 12, 2000

Clearly, Congress did not intend to preempt this field of law. Here, Mr. Robertson ran afoul of RCW 82.24. … In sum, under RCW 82.24.135(5), the person seeking recovery of a conveyance seized pursuant to RCW 82.24.130 bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she qualifies for an exemption from forfeiture

Herring v. Department of Social & Health Services

81 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1996

The SSI facilitator position was established in 1987 to assist Washington state residents receiving General Assistance Unemployable benefits (GAU) to successfully apply for SSI benefits. … An *16 appellate court will overturn a jury verdict only if it is "clearly unsupported by substantial evidence.” Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93, 107-08 , 864 P.2d. 937 (1994); Adcox v.