Case law

Goehle v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research

1 P.3d 579 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 20, 2000

The appellate court will only review a claimed error which is included in an assignment of error or clearly disclosed in the associated issue pertaining thereto. … To limit the damage award, the employer must first establish that the misconduct was of such severity that the employee would have been terminated on the *586 basis of the misconduct alone if the employer had known of it.

In re the Estate of Bussler

160 Wash. App. 449 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 2011

Prior to Christmas 2008 it was observed decedent established a reasonable relationship when Kathleen visited from Hayden Lake, Idaho. … We will not interfere with a trial court’s decision to award attorney fees under RCW 11.24.050 unless there are facts and circumstances that clearly show an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

State Of Washington v. Leonel Gonzalez

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 17, 2018

This does not include qualifying patients with a valid authorization. … Marijuana is clearly included in the definition of a controlled substance for purposes of ch. RCW 69.50 RCW. See RCW 69.50.101(e); RCW 69.50.204(c)(22); 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11(d)(23).

State v. Applin

116 Wash. App. 818 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 5, 2003

Crenshaw and Cameron together thus establish that no definition should ordinarily be given. 24 While an instruction such as that given in Potter specifically referencing the ability to understand an act was morally wrong … Gustafson stated on cross-examination that he believed Applin clearly knew his acts were against “the civil law,” but couldn’t say whether, at the time of the alleged murder, Applin “possessed the ability to tell right from

In Re Estate of Bussler

247 P.3d 821 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 2011

Prior to Christmas 2008 it was observed decedent established a reasonable relationship when Kathleen visited from Hayden Lake, Idaho. … We will not interfere with a trial court's decision to award attorney fees under RCW 11.24.050 unless there are facts and circumstances that clearly show an abuse of the trial court's discretion.

Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

137 Wash. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 2007

Nonetheless, the Board need not defer to a county decision that is clearly an erroneous application of the Act. … RCW 36.70A.280(2)(d) provides that a person “qualified pursuant to RCW 34.05.530” has standing before a growth management hearings board.

Kay L. Pruczinski et vir v. Allen Ashby et ux

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 12, 2015

We examine our statutes to determine whether Trooper Ashby was both qualified to arrest in Washington, and whether his arrest of Ms. Pruczinski was lawful. Authority to arrest. … In the end, the trial court granted Trooper Ashby's CR 12{b)(2) dismissal motion for lack of personal jurisdiction, clearly doing so as a matter of comity and fundamental fairness. I would affirm.

State v. Price

109 P.3d 27 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2005

But Price was required to establish likely prejudice; the burden is not on the court. … Sheaffer, was established by introducing the 1998 criminal complaint, the injury was established by the deputy's testimony, and Price's culpability was established by sufficient evidence in his statement on plea of guilty

Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD.

154 P.3d 959 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 2007

Nonetheless, the Board need not defer to a county decision that is clearly an erroneous application of the Act. … In making this designation, counties must consider guidelines established by the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development. RCW 36.70A.170(2).

State v. Stubsjoen

48 Wash. App. 139 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 8, 1987

The rule merely enunciates our long-standing practice of addressing error where justice clearly demands we do so. … The verdict establishes that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that there had been an intentional abduction.

Susanne Turnipseed, V. Dayton Campbell Harris

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 25, 2025

To the extent she provided opinions regarding Turnipseed’s condition, she gave unequivocal testimony that clearly was based on her expertise. … But the trial was not about establishing fault – Campbell Harris admitted fault. The trial was about determining whether the 2012 accident caused Turnipseed’s claimed injuries.

State v. Makela

66 Wash. App. 164 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 22, 1992

Makela moved to exclude those statements on the basis that they did not qualify as prior consistent statements under ER 801(d)(1)(ii). … Thus, the record clearly shows that Makela not only attacked J's credibility, but also expressly charged that she was fabricating her allegations.

Roberson v. Perez

96 P.3d 420 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2004

We also very clearly requested any internal documents relevant to an investigation of [Detective] Perez. " CP at 1451 (emphasis added). Mr. … The plaintiffs' discovery requests that are the subject of the sanction were clearly addressed to the City of Wenatchee alone.

Respiratory Care v. State, Dept. of Revenue

268 P.3d 972 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2011

Dep't of Revenue, 105 *979 Wash.2d 912, 917-18, 719 P.2d 541 (1986) (rejecting taxpayer's argument that the Department could use a regulation "to expand the tax immunity of exporters beyond the exemptions provided by statute … 94 Wash.2d 701, 711 , 620 P.2d 88 (1980)). [14] Excise Tax Bulletin 498.08.151, which the Department promulgated almost 28 years before the legislature adopted its own statutory definition of "prosthetic devices," [15] clearly

Valentine v. Portland Timber & Land Holding Co.

15 Wash. App. 124 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 22, 1976

Clearly, due process requires a “day in court” before property interests can be extinguished. … Even assuming arguendo that the amount of Olson’s bid represents the amount of his judgment, we are not persuaded that the mortgagee at a foreclosure sale cannot qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value.

Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Department of Social & Health Services

162 Wash. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 27, 2011

As part of this program, DSHS compensates nursing facilities in this state for care they provide to residents who qualify for Medicaid. … Rather, we must determine the Legislature’s intent, as expressed by the statutes before us. ¶33 Second, as we explained earlier in this opinion, the statutes clearly state that the MACMI and FACMI shall be determined from

In re the Personal Restraint of Carter

154 Wash. App. 907 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 9, 2010

Carter contends that this change in the law applies retroactively to his case. ¶16 Deck applied clearly established law relevant to the guilt phase of a trial to the capital sentencing context. Lakin v. … To the extent that Carter’s argument is successful, the ends of justice clearly warrant reconsideration of this issue. See In re Pers.

State Of Washington v. Tonya Lynn Carlson

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 12, 2013

The bag was unzipped, clearly showing the marijuana, and he seized the bag. … Given the trial strategy to establish that Carlson had been intimidated, Officer Holt's testimony was relevant to establish what he said and when he said it.

State of Washington v. Heather L. Mercado

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 5, 2014

You will be required to be tested/or the [acquired immune deficiency syndrome] AIDS virus. … A defendant cannot agree to punishment in excess of that which the legislature has established. In re Pers. Restraint of West, 154 Wn.2d 204,214, 110 P.3d 1122 (2005); In re Pers.

Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. CPCC

105 Wash. App. 813 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 2001

To help prevent such lawsuits, the legislature granted immunity from civil liability to parties who, in good faith, communicate a complaint to a government agency. RCW 4.24.510. … When " clearly necessary" to make this decision, the trial court may undertake in camera review of the requested information. Snedigar, 114 Wash.2d at 166 , 786 P.2d 781 .