Case law

In re the Detention of McGary

175 Wash. App. 328 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 2013

Wollert’s late preparation of the Static-2002R and the PCL-R during his cross-examination and during closing argument. ¶39 To establish prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must establish that the prosecutor’s conduct … The “general acceptance” consideration is clearly based on Frye. State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879 , 890 n.4, 846 P.2d 502 (1993).

Roeber v. Yakima

116 Wash. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 11, 2003

Even so, he clearly felt overwhelmed by the stress of deadlines and the long hours expected from management. … He shows neither that he was qualified for a vacant position nor that Dowty failed to notify him of job opportunities that would accommodate his alleged disability. Id. at 643-44 ; Wilson v. Wenatchee Sch.

Cotton v. City of Elma

100 Wash. App. 685 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2000

The appointed judge shall be qualified to hold the position of judge of the municipal court as provided in this chapter. … Clearly the City Council was deciding whether to confirm Cotton on a temporary basis.

Baldus v. Bank of California

12 Wash. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 20, 1975

The provision clearly authorizes the trustee to retain in trust a disproportionate share of the National Lead stock. … fiduciary may invest funds held in trust under an instrument creating such trust, in any manner and/or in any investment and/or in any class of investments authorized by such instrument, whether or not the same is otherwise qualified

Jeff Kirby, Apps. v. State Of Wa, Dept Of Employment Security, Resp.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 10, 2014

On July 9, 2011, the Department issued a determination notice denying her request for benefits because she was fired for work misconduct and therefore did not qualify for benefits. … This conclusion is supported by the ALJ's factual findings, which are unchallenged on appeal, and PSS fails to show the ALJ's ruling is clearly erroneous.

State Of Washington, V. Jeremy Michael Santiago

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 2, 2021

The felony firearm charge to which Santiago agreed to plead guilty did not qualify for community custody supervision. … The State is attempting to shift the burden to Santiago, ignoring the wealth of case law clearly establishing that the burden of proving up criminal history for purposes of sentencing lies squarely with the State.

Edelman v. State

116 Wash. App. 876 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 13, 2003

One of the initiative’s primary purposes was to establish campaign contribution limits and to reduce the influence of large organizational contributors. RCW 42.17.620. … When read together with its related statutory subsec *884 tions, 4 RCW 42.17.660(2) clearly provides that where any subunit of a corporation or labor union makes a political campaign contribution, this contribution is considered

Mayer v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc.

909 P.2d 1323 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 9, 1996

Agreement and by the Bureau's Bylaws. [2] As support, he cites two principles of general contract construction: (1) when there is an inconsistency between a general and a specific provision, the specific provision ordinarily qualifies … Although clearly applicable to the circumstances in this case, Mayer concedes that this legislation did not take effect until 1993, one year after the Bureau cancelled the Preferred Participant Agreement.

Klotz v. Dehkhoda

141 P.3d 67 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 2006

an adequate alternative forum even though that jurisdiction does not allow recovery for pain and suffering, or for lost and future earnings: [T]he fact that a particular claim cannot be raised in a foreign forum does not establish … We note that the letter was not competent evidence of Canadian law, since the insurance adjuster was not shown to be qualified to give an expert opinion on that subject. ER 702; Sehlin v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St.

State of Washington v. Salvador S. Nava

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 22, 2013

Sergeant Salinas's testimony at the erR 3.5 hearing was sufficient to establish that Mr. … excessive or clearly too lenient."

State Of Washington, V. Matthew Michael Heleniak

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 2025

It is well established that “[a] plea agreement is a contract between the State and the defendant.” State v. MacDonald, 183 Wn.2d 1, 8, 346 P.3d 748 (2015). … In contrast, the prosecutor in this case used the qualifying phrase “at least” only once during the sentencing hearing rather than repeatedly like in Williams.

Estate of Bordon v. Department of Corrections

122 Wash. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 6, 2004

This testimony *247 would clearly have been beyond his expertise and merely speculative. … Stough also testified that in his opinion, Jones clearly posed a danger to others, particularly when driving.

Moore v. Hagge

241 P.3d 787 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 1, 2010

Similarly, if there is a clearly marked route directing pedestrians to use a particular path and it is where I am headed, then I use that marked route. … Moore concedes that "the direct evidence clearly supports the fact that he was struck by Ms. Hagge's car while on the improved, far-right portion of South 240th Street."

In re the Detention of Halgren

124 Wash. App. 206 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2004

Indeed, for due process purposes, our Supreme Court has already established that “the civil commitment of an SVP satisfies due process if the *215 SVP statute couples proof of dangerousness with proof of an additional element … They “ ‘are not repugnant to each other unless the *216 proof of one will disprove the other.’ ” 19 Clearly, one can be diagnosed with a personality disorder without disproving a mental abnormality, and vice versa.

State v. Mason

110 P.3d 245 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 18, 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 *248 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.

Shaffer v. McFadden

125 Wash. App. 364 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 18, 2005

These contacts are clearly sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Lexington. … McFadden argues that Geggel’s declaration is improper because there is no evidence that Geggel is qualified to opine on the standard of care for Canadian surgeons.

Shaffer v. McFadden

104 P.3d 742 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 18, 2005

These contacts are clearly sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Lexington. This, however, does not resolve the issue of whether McFadden is subject to jurisdiction in Washington. … McFadden argues that Geggel's declaration is improper because there is no evidence that Geggel is qualified to opine on the standard of care for Canadian surgeons.

Kimberly Bogardus v. City of Yakima

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 2025

If the moving party satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish there is a genuine issue for the trier of fact. … She provides no citation to the record supporting her argument, and the letter itself clearly contradicts her unsupported statement.

State v. Moore

73 Wash. App. 805 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 1994

The "if any” language clearly permits a county to select the number of court commissioner positions it wishes to have, if those positions were identified in the district court plan. … She is not an attorney or qualified to practice law in the State of Washington”.

State v. Bottrell

14 P.3d 164 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 15, 2000

A: Well, she was clearly in a position where she perceived herself again in an abusive position where her life was being threatened. … This standard is consistent with established case law.