Case law

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.

Kustura v. Department of Labor & Industries

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

In February 2000, the Department issued an order terminating time-loss compensation because she returned to work, but left the claim open and established a wage rate. … But Marintorres involved interpreter costs for a defendant in the criminal context, where the government clearly initiates the proceedings, and does not apply here.

State Of Washington, V Agyel Jumanne Mcdaniel

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 2015

In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that the felony murder statute is not ambiguous, and that it clearly includes a deadly assault as a predicate offense. … The appellant' s failure to establish either prong is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Strickland, 466 U. S. at 700.

Hibbert v. Centennial Villas, Inc.

56 Wash. App. 889 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 14, 1990

While an employer need not establish personnel policies or practices, where an employer chooses to establish such policies and practices and makes them known to its employees, the employment relationship is presumably enhanced … There is a bona fide job opening for which the potential transferee qualifies. c. A transfer request is submitted at least two (2) weeks in advance of the proposed transfer. *901 2.

State of Washington v. Jacob Nathaniel Cox

17 Wash. App. 2d 178 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 2021

Cox argues that the Rape Shield Statute does not apply to the flirtatious evidence that he proffered at trial because it does not qualify as “past sexual behavior.” We agree. … But defense counsel clearly argued that the flirtatious behavior was evidence of intoxication, uncharacteristic behavior, and relevant to his theory of the case.

In Re Detention of Morgan

253 P.3d 394 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 1, 2011

Accordingly, former RCW 71.09.060(2) explicitly relates only to whether the requisite predicate offense to qualify as an SVP exists. … Univ. of Wash., 42 Wash.App. 465, 472-73 , 712 P.2d 306 (1985), review denied, 105 Wash.2d 1014 , 1986 WL 421070 (1986)). ¶ 33 Here, the record does not clearly establish that Morgan was forcibly medicated during his SVP

State of Washington, Dept. of Natural Resources v. PUD 1 of Klickitat County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 30, 2015

In 1931, the legislature authorized the establishment of public utility districts. LAWS OF 1931, ch. 1, § 2. … But the definitions appearing in RCW 76.04.760 "only apply throughout this section ... unless the context clearly requires otherwise."

BELLEAU WOODS II, LLC v. City of Bellingham

208 P.3d 5 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 26, 2009

Credit for the dedication of land shall be valued at fair market value established by private appraisers acceptable to the City. … of the ordinance does not require such an interpretation. ¶ 18 The hearing examiner ended by ruling that park "impact fees for the subject development shall be paid in accordance with BMC Chapter 19.04, with credit for qualifying

Mitchell v. Washington State Institute of Public Policy

153 Wash. App. 803 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 22, 2009

. ¶18 The process server license King County issued clearly states, “MCS Global Inc[.] for: Kevin Michael Mitchell.” CP at 83 (emphasis omitted). … Finally, Mitchell claims that he is due statutory attorney fees. ¶42 The statutory attorney fee is clearly not improper.

Personal Restraint Petition Of: Shane Ammel Lynn

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 20, 2025

Separately, our review of the record and opinion on Lynn’s direct appeal establishes that as a re- presentation, this issue is clearly frivolous for that very reason. See RAP 16.8.1(b). … Our Supreme Court has clearly established that a “defendant is not entitled to challenge the information on appeal if [they] failed to request a bill of particulars at an earlier time.” Id.

In re the Welfare of Shantay C.J.

121 Wash. App. 926 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 8, 2004

Burdge further testified that the parents were on a waiting list to get into therapeutic daycare but, due to drug use or incarceration, the parents did not qualify for the program. … (f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes that child’s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.

Petters v. Williamson & Associates, Inc.

151 Wash. App. 154 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 6, 2009

It is well established, however, that “[a] plaintiff seeking to establish a trade secrets claim under the uniform act [5] has the burden of proving that legally protectable secrets exist.” Boeing Co. v. … The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the defendant’s sales; the defendant has the burden of establishing any portion of the sales not attributable to the trade secret and any expenses to be deducted in determining

Lindsay & Keith Mcginnis, V. Advance Recovery Systems

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 30, 2025

The common interest privilege clearly applies to these communications. … Because McGinnis has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that Roa made the statements with actual malice, the Defendants are entitled to the protections of the qualified common interest privilege.

State Of Washington v. Tamas Hibszki

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 2015

App. 766, 772, 247 P.3d 11 (2011) (holding even if a locomotive is not a "railway car" it still qualifies as a "building" under the ordinary meaning of the term); State v. Tyson. 33 Wn. … Jury Instructions Hibszki asserts the jury instructions did not clearly state that the State has the burden of proving accomplice liability beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Trask

91 Wash. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 29, 1998

The value of the land was established at a jury trial. … The relocation benefits *275 statute, RCW 8.26.035, clearly contemplates reimbursement instead of, or at least as an alternative to, advancement.

In Re Welfare of Shantay Cj

91 P.3d 909 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 8, 2004

Burdge further testified that the parents were on a waiting list to get into therapeutic daycare but, due to drug use or incarceration, the parents did not qualify for the program. … (f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes that child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.

Southwest Washington Production Credit Ass'n v. Seattle-First National Bank

19 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 28, 1978

We cannot accept this conclusion because (a) it is not supported by the evidence and (b) the Baker PCA case is clearly distinguishable. … Clearly that situation is not present in the case before us.

In re the Marriage of Daubert

124 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 25, 2004

Johnson disputed the extent of the need for orthodontia and asserted he was qualified to provide what portion was necessary. … However, RCW 26.19.020, .065(3) and .080(4) all require the court to enter findings of fact when establishing a child support amount above the amounts in the economic table.

Intalco Aluminum Corp. v. Department of Labor & Industries

66 Wash. App. 644 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 27, 1992

The court continued: Thus, a cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists. … That Ferebee's case may have been the first of its exact type, or that his doctors may have been the first alert enough to recognize such a case, does not mean that the testimony of those doctors, who are concededly well qualified

State v. Breitung

230 P.3d 614 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 2010

assault against a household member); see also RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(i) (formerly RCW 9.41.040(1)(b)(i) (1997) (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.