Case law

State Of Washington v. Peter Davis

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 9, 2013

Specifically, Davis argues that he did not have a full understanding of his plea due to the trial court's failure to establish that he had two qualifying prior convictions for violating a court order, which is a requisite … Davis contends that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for his guilty plea because his criminal history stipulation did not specify that his prior convictions for violating a court order were qualifying

State v. Peerson

62 Wash. App. 755 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 9, 1991

Peerson, under 24-hour police surveillance in his hospital room, was clearly in custody. … We are also unable to review his argument that the prosecutor, in allegedly requesting the trial court in the jury's presence to grant Wiren immunity, vouched for Wiren's credibility.

Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane

96 Wash. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 1999

In view of these facts, the City has clearly used the three items according to the ordinary meaning of this word. … Evidence that an agency “merely reviewed, evaluated, or referred to the document is insuf *575 ficient to establish ‘use’.” Id. at 231-32. Here much more is involved.

City of Yakima v. Yakima Police & Fire Civil Service Commission

29 Wash. App. 756 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 1981

The judiciary will generally defer to an agency judgment when it interprets its own rules because the agency is best qualified when acting within the ambit of its administrative function. State Utils. & Transp. … Schwartz, Administrative Law § 59 (1976). 10 The court stated in its memorandum opinion: "It is not clearly apparent" the Commission had jurisdiction to respond to Mr. Sloan's demand for an investigation.

Diane J. Lewis, V. Washington State Department Of Labor And Industries

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 25, 2023

Article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution states: “[n]o law shall be passed granting to any citizen [or] class of citizens . . . privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to … Because Lewis cannot establish marine and land- based workers are similarly situated, her claim fails.

Kimberly Gerlach v. The Cove Apartments

437 P.3d 690 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 18, 2019

The Supreme Court held that Peralta's admission was clearly an admission of intoxication under RCW 5.40.060(1). Peralta, 187 Wn.2d at 899. … Vincenzi was a qualified expert as to the effects of alcohol upon the human body. Dr.

Hurst v. L.G.

78 Wash. App. 420 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 5, 1995

Clearly, this case is moot because L.G. is no longer being detained under the order at issue and thus this court cannot provide effective relief. In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 377 , 662 P.2d 828 (1983). … These specialists have training and expertise that make them uniquely qualified to investigate and report to the trial court on matters directly at issue in the petition hearing.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Huizar

76 Wash. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1994

It is now defined in WAC 296-20-01002 as "[Notification by a qualified representative of the department or self-insurer that specific medically necessary treatment, services, or equipment provided for the diagnosis and curative … The lack of a regulatory definition of authorization at the time in question is not determinative because the record clearly establishes as a matter of undisputed fact that Boise Cascade did not in any way approve, authorize

State v. Mason

126 P.3d 34 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 2005

statement fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. [4] The excited utterance exception is a firmly rooted hearsay exception, [5] and thus out-of-court statements made by unavailable witnesses were admissible if they qualified … The court clearly limited the admissibility of this testimony, and in this context, Santoso's statement was not introduced to implicate Mason. Crawford is inapplicable. 5.

Canal Station North Condominium Ass'n v. Ballard Leary Phase II, LP

179 Wash. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 23, 2013

as “affiliates” of the Declarant, and/or pursuant to RCW 19.40.011(7) qualify as “insiders” of Declarant and one another. … We find it worth noting, however, that RCW 64.55.100(1) clearly contemplates waiver if the party seeking arbitration does not make a timely demand as required by the statute.

Boyce v. West

71 Wash. App. 657 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 16, 1993

We do not find a public interest in a private school 7 offering scuba diving instruction to qualified students as an elective course. Upholding the release of Gonzaga does not violate public policy. Mrs. … Negligent instruction and supervision are clearly risks associated with being a student in a scuba diving course and are encompassed by the broad language of the contract. That Mr.

State v. Winterstein

166 P.3d 1242 · 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.

Rivas v. Eastside Radiology Associates

143 P.3d 330 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 18, 2006

. ¶ 6 Because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, the burden is on the party asserting it, here Muraki, to prove the facts that establish it. Haslund v. … Other time periods set out in *335 the guardianship statutes could add to the minimum time required to appoint a guardian. [5] ¶ 15 While we do not set out a bright line rule for the minimum duration of incapacity to qualify

Knack v. Department of Retirement Systems

54 Wash. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 5, 1989

If a *658 member had established ten or more years of Washington membership service credit or was eligible for retirement, the beneficiary or the surviving spouse if otherwise eligible may elect, in lieu of a cash refund … Clearly, the Legislature, in amending RCW 41.32-.520 to govern the benefits of survivors of those members who die prior to the first installment becoming due, intended to treat the two circumstances differently.

State Of Washington v. Robert Guy Osborn

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 15, 2019

RCW 69.50.315 Osborn asserts that he was immune from prosecution pursuant to RCW 69.50.315(2). … There was no evidence that established that medical aid was given to Osborn.

Polygon Northwest Co. v. American National Fire Insurance

143 Wash. App. 753 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 7, 2008

To the contrary, its policies clearly state that it will be liable for those sums “in excess” of its underlying insurers’ policy limits. … The equitable basis established in Olympic Steamship for attorney fee awards is limited to efforts *796 necessary to establish coverage for claims against the insured and is based on the rights of the insured.

Dussault v. American International Group, Inc.

123 Wash. App. 863 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 1, 2004

Tank clearly controls, and it bars Walker-Van Burén from bringing suit against AIG under the unfair practices regulations. … Because she alleges affirmative misrepresentations, she does not need to establish a duty to disclose.

State Of Washington v. J.k.t.

455 P.3d 173 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 30, 2019

has not established an abuse of discretion. … J.K.T.’s assertion is clearly rebutted by Roberts. See 142 Wn.2d at 496- 97.

Mellor v. Scott Publishing Co.

10 Wash. App. 645 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 27, 1974

The alleged libelous statements complained of by the plaintiffs were interspersed among the series of articles 2 covering what was clearly a matter of public inter *648 est, concern and controversy. … The articles disclose that Mellor is an eminently qualified appraiser, that he viewed each property appraised, and the State Department of Revenue recognized that in making the appraisals Mellor followed approved and generally

In the Matter of the Parental Rights to: D.J.S.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 28, 2020

James Smith contends that DSHS failed to establish that it provided all ordered and necessary services. … The finding of harm must also be supported by the testimony of a qualified expert witness. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f); RCW 13.38.130(3).