Case law

State Of Washington, V Erin Deon Rieman

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 27, 2015

This exception entitles a petitioner to relief if he establishes that the evidence "`( 1) will probably change the result of the trial; ( 2) was discovered since the trial; ( 3 … See Brown, 143 Wn.2d at 453 ( to qualify as newly discovered, evidence must have been discovered since trial and must not have been discoverable before trial).

In re the Marriage of David-Oytan

171 Wash. App. 781 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 5, 2012

Since I am a diplomat with diplomatic immunity, per the 1962 and 1964 Vienna Conventions, Canada does not have jurisdiction over me or my property. … The legislature did not define “living in a marital relationship” but clearly viewed it as distinct from residency — a feature of the statute Kudret would like us to ignore. 6 What constitutes living in a marital relationship

In re the Welfare of: B.P.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2015

The Department has established RCW 13.34.180( 1)(f) by clear cogent and convincing evidence. 39. [H.O.] clearly loves [B.P.] and wants to parent her. … If anything, DSHS established less cause to terminate H.O.'s parental rights than it established with regard to the mother in SJ. SJ.'

Bravern Residential II, LLC v. Department of Revenue

183 Wash. App. 769 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 2014

Similarly, the court in Nord emphasized the “well established legal principle that a business entity is a distinct, separate ‘person’ from its owners.” Nord, 164 Wn. App. at 230 . … The guidelines state that to qualify as a speculative builder, the joint venture must “perform the construction itself.” CP at 488.

State v. Breitung

155 Wash. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 2010

degree assault against a household member); see also RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i) (formerly RCW 9.41.040(l)(b)(i) (Laws of 1997, ch. 338, § 47 (effective July 1, 1997))) (fourth degree assault committed against a household member qualifies … Here the requirement of both oral and written notice of the firearm possession prohibition is clearly intended to impart actual notice of the illegality.

State Of Washington, V. Meta Platforms, Inc.

560 P.3d 217 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 2, 2024

After all, “[t]o provide broad immunity ‘every time a website uses data initially obtained from third parties would eviscerate [the disclosure law].’” Id. (quoting Barnes, 570 F.3d at 1100). … Here, the disclosure law is clearly a civil penal statute as it authorizes “sanctions” and “penalties” for violations. RCW 42.17A.750.

State of Washington v. Jackie Lynn Dean

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 29, 2022

Dean As more fully detailed in Jodie Lee Dean, “Wentz established that the ordinary meaning of ‘fenced area’ clearly includes an area that is completely surrounded by a fence.” … not qualify the yard as curtilage under Engel.

State Of Washington, V Naaman Jamal Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 11, 2014

to only one qualifying patient at any one time. … Calvin, this court explained that "[w]e review the trial court's decision to impose discretionary financial obligations under the clearly erroneous standard."29 "'A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there

Knutson v. Department of Social & Health Services

160 Wash. App. 854 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 28, 2011

The order is clearly directed only to the guardians to use the estate income for Janette’s care and maintenance at Fircrest. … The cost of care is computed by subtracting allowable deductions from an individual’s qualifying income. See RCW 43.20B.420 through .425; WAC 388-513-1380 (calculation of financial participation in cost of care).

State of Washington v. Tishawn Marqueis Winborne

420 P.3d 707 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2018

If confronted with a challenge for cause in which the facts do not clearly establish whether a prospective juror should be removed, the better practice will be to resolve doubt in favor of disqualification … However, this error is not so fundamental that it qualifies as structural.

In Re Custody of AC

153 P.3d 203 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 13, 2007

statement offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is not admissible at trial unless it qualifies as an exception. … Despite this language, which is apparently contained in the standard custody form used by the court to draft its findings and conclusions, the trial court's findings and its oral ruling clearly establish that it applied the

Sign-O-Lite Signs, Inc. v. DeLaurenti Florists, Inc.

64 Wash. App. 553 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 21, 1992

This is bolstered by the fact that the act allows for injunctive relief, clearly implying that injury without monetary damages will suffice. Nordstrom, at 740. … Attorney fees as awarded in the present context do not qualify as actual damages.

Riofta v. State

142 P.3d 193 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 22, 2006

RCW 10.73.170(2)(a)(i), (ii), and the first half of (iii) clearly indicate that the information to allegedly be gathered through post-conviction DNA testing was unavailable at trial. … But during Riofta's trial in 2000, DNA testing was established and common. [14] Citing Herrera v.

David N. v. Holly Marie C.

137 Wash. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 13, 2007

statement offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is not admissible at trial unless it qualifies as an exception. … Despite this language, which is apparently contained in the standard custody form used by the court to draft its findings and conclusions, the trial court’s findings and its oral ruling clearly establish that it applied the

State Of Washington, V Gabriel Indelicio Nevarez

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 25, 2022

Houston-Sconiers established that a trial court must consider mitigating qualities of youth, even when imposing a standard range sentence. See In re Pers. … Thus, we hold that these 19- and 20-year-old petitioners must qualify for some of the same constitutional protections as well.” Id. at 313 (emphasis added).

Northshore Investors, LLC v. City of Tacoma

174 Wash. App. 678 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 30, 2013

CP at 82 (emphasis added). ¶31 Here, the facts parallel those our Supreme Court clearly contemplated in Habitat Watch . … Northshore’s argument fails because it has not established that the Council issued a written decision. 3.

Grove v. PeaceHealth St. Joseph Hospital

177 Wash. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 28, 2013

Ghidella testified that the damage sustained by Grove was “clearly” a result of the late diagnosis. ¶9 Dr. … Moreover, in a tortious interference case, no expert testimony is necessary to establish duty.

Havens v. C&D Plastics, Inc.

68 Wash. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 28, 1992

Havens told Johnson he was not qualified for the position, and offered him an assembly line position instead. 3. … Clearly, that is not this case. As stated in Hatfield v. Columbia Fed. Sav. Bank, 57 Wn. App. 876, 885 , 790 P.2d 1258 (1990) (citing J.

In re the Detention of Morgan

161 Wash. App. 66 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 2011

Accordingly, former RCW 71.09.060(2) explicitly relates only to whether the requisite predicate offense to qualify as an SVP exists. … App. 465, 472-73 , 712 P.2d 306 (1985), review denied, 105 Wn.2d 1014 (1986)). *84 ¶33 Here, the record does not clearly establish that Morgan was forcibly medicated during his SVP trial.

State v. McKague

159 Wash. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 19, 2011

Historically, the State was required to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant to be sentenced under a recidivist statute was the person who was previously convicted of statutorily qualifying offenses … felony with a possible life sentence under RCW 9A.20.021(l)(a), and finding McKague guilty of third degree theft (a gross misdemeanor) and second degree assault (a class B felony), the jury who sat in judgment of McKague clearly