Case law

Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management

216 P.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 15, 2009

assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such charges by proof of his or her compliance with the requirements provided in this chapter. … Thus, Roe cannot establish the clarity element necessary to support her wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim and it fails. ¶ 26 MUMA provides qualifying medical users only a defense to criminal prosecution

Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. WSDOT

215 P.3d 257 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 10, 2009

"Bad faith" includes "`obstinate conduct that necessitates legal action' to enforce a clearly valid claim or right," "vexatious" conduct during the litigation, or the intentional bringing of a frivolous claim or defense with … WSDOT denied reimbursement for the substitute equipment because it determined that the equipment at issue was real property and therefore did not qualify for relocation assistance.

Martonik v. Durkan

23 Wash. App. 47 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 10, 1979

Co., 91 Wn.2d 408 , 589 P.2d 1223 (1979), establishes that Martonik correctly could have been termed a "public official." … His proposed instructions Nos. 1 and 2 read: 1 A publication to be privileged, as a report to a committee on an employee's qualifications, must be full and accurate or any immunity is lost.

B.S. v. Department of Social & Health Services

94 Wash. App. 511 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 9, 1999

B.S. and L.S. are contending that they should be immunized from termination because the unavailability of a single offered service makes it impossible to prove RCW 13.34.180(4). … The term “conditions” clearly refers to present and continuing objective deficits in B.S.’s and L.S.’s parenting skills.

Suarez v. Newquist

70 Wash. App. 827 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 5, 1993

This was an obvious effort to avoid the immunity bar, not well grounded in facts, not well grounded in the existing law of sovereign immunity, 9 and without further inquiry. … Gomez and briefly detained him; he was clearly authorized to do so. See State v. Schmuck, 121 Wn.2d 373 , 850 P.2d 1332 (1993) and the federal cases cited therein.

Roger Leishman v. Ogden, Murphy & Wallace

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 3, 2019

A person prevailing upon the defense provided for in this section is entitled to recover expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in establishing the defense and in addition shall receive statutory … Justice Madsen, however, was not convinced that a “person’s” free speech rights “is dispositive of the question whether a government agency is a ‘person’ qualifying for RCW 4.24.510’s immunity from civil liability.”

Jewels v. City of Bellingham

180 Wash. App. 605 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2014

The City moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity under the recreational land use statute. … dangerous, artificial, and latent — was present in the injury-causing condition. 3 “If one of the four elements is not present, a claim cannot survive summary judgment.” 4 Jewels claims that the injury-causing condition was “clearly

Vergeson v. Kitsap County

186 P.3d 1140 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 2008

No matter how reasonable, Vergeson's unspoken expectation that her quashed warrant would be removed from the databases does not qualify as an express assurance for purposes of establishing this special relationship exception … Nevertheless, the legislature's abolition of sovereign immunity did not affect the public duty doctrine.

Esparza v. Skyreach Equipment, Inc.

103 Wash. App. 916 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 26, 2000

The court then prohibited Skyreach from arguing that JLG Industries, Inc., was a nonparty entity to which the jury could allocate fault because the evidence did “not establish that the machine was defective either in design … each other and serve the same purpose — prompt payment of benefits to the injured worker and immunity from allocation of fault to the employer.

Roger Leishman v. Ogden, Murphy & Wallace

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 21, 2019

A person prevailing upon the defense provided for in this section is entitled to recover expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in establishing the defense and in addition shall receive statutory damages … Justice Madsen, however, was not convinced that a “person’s” free speech rights “is dispositive of the question whether a government agency is a ‘person’ qualifying for RCW 4.24.51 0’s immunity from civil liability.”

State v. Otis

213 P.3d 613 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 11, 2009

patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such … Primary Caregiver ¶ 16 In addition to other requirements under the Act not at issue here, [6] in order for Otis to establish a primary caregiver affirmative defense he must [p]resent a copy of the qualifying patient's valid

State v. Otis

151 Wash. App. 572 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 11, 2009

patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be *578 deemed to have established an affirmative defense … App. at 482 . *579 Primary Caregiver ¶16 In addition to other requirements under the Act not at issue here, 6 in order for Otis to establish a primary caregiver affirmative defense he must [p]resent a copy of the qualifying

Finley v. Jordan

8 Wash. App. 607 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 2, 1973

It is settled that an intention to pass title to the center line is “always presumed” and that a contrary intent to withhold such title “must clearly appear.” Bradley v. … Finally, Jordan challenges the trial judge’s finding that Jordan did not establish his title to the strip by adverse possession for a 10-year period.

Taylor v. Stevens County

47 Wash. App. 134 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 10, 1987

This leaves the question of whether the Taylors have stated sufficient allegations to independently establish a special relationship. … The court clearly stated "Gundersons' liability runs to Radach and the City's duty runs to the Gunder- *141 sons." Radach , at 397.

State v. Clark

48 Wash. App. 850 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 12, 1987

The burden to establish government involvement in a private search rests on the defendant. Snowadzki. Cf. Dold. Clark does not contend the police knew of or acquiesced in the search by Brown. … Such a requirement not only gave some assurance of reliability to the State, but also served to set forth clearly the basis of the parties' agreement.

Michael Carlson, App/cross-res. v. San Juan County, Res/cross-app.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 2, 2014

As proposed, Council members are qualified by residing in one of three districts, called "residency districts." … Section 4.32 - Legislative Body - Nominations Qualified voters of... the County shall nominate candidates for the Legislative Body.

McKasson v. State

55 Wash. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 1989

It does not limit Baerlein or establish a duty running from the Securities Division to the appellants. We find that none of the cases cited by appellants are persuasive in establishing a duty in this case. … The rule of nonli-ability and the reasons therefor are clearly enunciated in the following cases: McDonald v.

Partridge v. City of Seattle

49 Wash. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 1987

Clearly, the statute, as amended, includes public landowners and occupiers within the recreational use immunity from liability. McCarver , at 376. … Construing the statute to include constructive knowledge would be contrary to the clearly expressed purpose of RCW 4.24 limiting the liability of landowners.

Omar Abdul Alim v. City Of Seattle

14 Wash. App. 2d 838 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 19, 2020

Their interest as individual gun owners in keeping unsecured firearms in their homes is clearly within the zone of interests regulated by the ordinance. The City does not contend otherwise. … App. 92, 108, 38 P.3d 1040 (2002), when the legal issue is whether an ordinance violates the constitution (or here a state statute), the issue is one a court is particularly qualified to decide.

Grader v. City of Lynnwood

53 Wash. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 13, 1989

The discriminatory purpose must be clearly shown since such a purpose cannot be presumed. Snowden; Stastny v. Board of Trustees, 32 Wn. … This, in itself, is not sufficient to establish a due process claim.