Case law

In Re the Marriage of Boisen

87 Wash. App. 912 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 12, 1997

Burgess' obligation to pay college expenses was established and defined when he and Ms. Boisen executed the 1974 separation agreement. … His obligation was not qualified in any way.

Johnson v. Recreational Equipment, Inc.

247 P.3d 18 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 7, 2011

He also noted that the bicycle itself was "clearly a high mileage vehicle" that displayed "substantial wear and tear." CP at 176. … REI asserts that "there is no evidence in the record to establish that the fork at issue deviated from Aprebic's design standards." Br. of Pet'r at 34.

State v. McNeal

142 Wash. App. 777 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 23, 2008

435 (2000) and Blakely , 10 because the State’s charging information failed to “allege the existence of the condition precedent to the application” of the RCW 69.50.408(1) sentencing-doubling provision, namely, his prior qualifying … Because McNeal cannot show a disadvantage flowing from this new sentencing procedure on remand, he does not establish an ex post facto violation. V.

KUSTURA v. Department of Labor and Industries

142 Wash. App. 655 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 22, 2008

Fernandez, 155 Wash.2d 585, 593 , 121 P.3d 82 (2005) ("`[U]nless a contrary intention appears in the statute, qualifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent.'") … But Marintorres involved interpreter costs for a defendant in the criminal context where the government clearly initiates the proceedings and does not apply here.

In re the Parental Rights to B.P.

188 Wash. App. 113 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2015

The Department has established RCW 13.34-.180(l)(f) by clear[,] cogent[,] and convincing evidence. 39. [H.O.] clearly loves [B.P.] and wants to parent her. … Practitioners consider such observations to be crucial in order to render a qualified, professional opinion as a mental health expert.

Fidelity Mort. Corp. v. Seattle Times Co.

128 P.3d 621 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 27, 2006

. ¶ 12 Further, Fidelity has failed to establish that the acts complained of constitute unfair or deceptive acts. … Fidelity contends that certain statements accompanying the chart qualify as misleading advertisements under Hartigan.

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County

172 Wash. App. 643 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

The majority rule provides that development is not immune from subsequently adopted regulations until a building permit has been obtained and substantial development has occurred in reliance on the permit. … The Task Force was established in 1993 by executive order 93-06.

State v. Avila

10 P.3d 486 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 12, 2000

The statute qualifies threat by requiring the threat be one "of force or violence." "Violence" includes numerous definitions. Webster's, supra, 2554. … The trial court did not err by concluding it was unnecessary for the State to establish that Mr. Avila intended to convey his threats to Mr. Kimes.

Austin K. Fite, V. City Of Puyallup

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2021

principles The business records exception to the hearsay prohibition states, A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified … Indeed, one witness clearly stated that “I did not see [Fite] stop before crossing the road.” 11 RP at 1874.

Ferry County v. Growth Management Hearings Board

184 Wash. App. 685 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 2014

RCW 36.70A.320(2). ¶64 In its compliance order, the GMHB recited these presumptions, requiring Futurewise to “establish that the new adoption is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the [GMHB] and in light … A county may consult with qualified scientists, but scientists should follow criteria contained in the regulations.

State v. Fenwick

164 Wash. App. 392 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 18, 2011

The rationale underpinning this exception is that a "contrary rule would reward the criminal defendant bringing a meritless motion to suppress evidence that is clearly barred by binding precedent while punishing the criminal … Because his trial was completed after Gant and Patton were decided, Fenwick does not fall within the scope of the "narrow class of cases" identified in Robinson as qualifying for an exception to the general rule of issue

State v. Avila

102 Wash. App. 882 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 12, 2000

The statute qualifies threat by requiring the threat be one “of force or violence.” “Violence” includes numerous definitions. Webster’s, supra, at 2554. … The trial court did not err by concluding it was unnecessary for the State to establish that Mr. Avila intended to convey his threats to Mr. Kimes.

Tom Latta v. Chelan County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 31, 2023

A use must be clearly established prior to the relevant change in zoning law. See Anderson v. … Wilkinson has no application here, where Ordinance 852 used specific language, clearly and plainly prohibiting STRs in low-density residential zones.

Greene v. Young

54 P.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 30, 2002

McMahon that clearly answers the question of whether one seeking damages for emotional distress need witness the accident: A bright-line rule that limits recovery for emotional distress to those who witnessed the accident … favorable to the insured applies. [12] An ambiguity exists only "`if the language on its face is fairly susceptible to two different but reasonable interpretations.'" [13] The policy states that in order for Mitchell to qualify

State of Washington v. Thomas Lee Weatherwax

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 3, 2016

Unlike Rodgers, the evidence in this case does not establish that Mr. Rodgers's car was parked blocks away, but there is insufficient evidence to establish that it was in the "immediate area" of the shooting. Mr. … In addition, the evidence most clearly supported the required intent as to Mr. Stromberg and Ms. Smith. They were the two victims standing outside the store, within the line of fire.

Austin K. Fite, V. City Of Puyallup

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 12, 2022

The business records exception to the hearsay prohibition states, A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified … Indeed, one witness clearly stated that “I did not see [Fite] stop before crossing the road.” 11 RP at 1874.

State of Washington v. Thomas Lee Weatherwax

193 Wash. App. 667 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 3, 2016

Unlike Rodgers, the evidence in this case does not establish that Mr. Rodgers's car was parked blocks away, but there is insufficient evidence to establish that it was in the "immediate area" of the shooting. Mr. … In addition, the evidence most clearly supported the required intent as to Mr. Stromberg and Ms. Smith. They were the two victims standing outside the store, within the line of fire.

State Of Washington v. Zyion Houston-Sconiers & Treson Roberts

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 24, 2015

, and whether he understood the effect of that immunity regarding potential future charges. … Therefore, Houston-Sconiers and Roberts clearly preserved this issue.

State Of Washington, V. Scott Joseph Perrin

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 28, 2025

Under established case law, “‘illegal or erroneous sentences may be challenged for the first time on appeal.’” State v. … App. 2d at 777, Evans, 177 Wn.2d at 193 (“[W]e will interpret an ambiguous penal statute adversely to the defendant only if statutory construction ‘clearly establishes’ that the legislature intended such an interpretation

In re the Personal Restraint of Marler

108 Wash. App. 799 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 22, 2001

We remand to the Board with instructions to fix a new minimum term and to delineate clearly the effect of a MAP upon accrual of statutory good time. *804 FACTS In 1980, Cynthia Marler came to Washington to kill Wanda Touchstone … A decision that an inmate is conditionally parolable via a MAP does not qualify as a decision on the duration of confinement unless the MAP process occurs within a predictable time frame.