Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
3,562 results
1.12s
Kary L. Caldwell, Respondent, v. the City of Hoquiam, Appellant
194 Wash. App. 209 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 18, 2016
2013). 4 No. 71947-5-1/5 Whether a duty exists is a question of law.3 We review de novo questions of law.4 Washington has legislatively abolished sovereign immunity … been declared dangerous: (a) The owner shall provide and maintain a proper enclosure for the dangerous dog, as defined in HMC 3.40.040(13); and (b) The owner shall post his or her premises with a clearly
Cited 4 timesUnpublishedIn the Matter of the Detention of: Bruce Austin
Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 4, 2023
Upon the State’s motion, the trial court determined as a matter of law that both convictions qualified as sexually violent offenses and qualified as predicate offenses. 4 … Clearly in 1981, the Alaska Legislature did not expect an eight-year-old boy to be legally married to his 25-year-old male neighbor.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished52 Wash. App. 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 3, 1988
"The burden of establishing . . . 'reasonable possibility' rests with the defendant." Vaster, at 52. … Wall's other complaints clearly concerned trial counsel's trial tactics. We have read the entire record and are of the opinion trial counsel waged an active defense. We conclude Mr.
Cited 2 timesPublishedState Of Washington, V. Daniel Achaw Zwede
Court of Appeals of Washington · May 2, 2022
He has not established that Zwede received ineffective assistance of counsel. … No. 81186-0-I/6 20-year-olds “must qualify for some of the same constitutional protections.”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOlson Engineering, Inc. v. KeyBank National Ass'n
171 Wash. App. 57 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 2, 2012
We agree with KeyBank, however, that the plain language of the following sentence merely qualifies who may file a release-of-lien bond and that it does not limit the scope of the parties’ lien priority dispute: *68 Any . … If the lien is established, the judgment shall provide for the enforcement thereof upon the property liable as in the case of foreclosure of judgment liens.
Cited 6 timesPublishedState Ex Rel. Eikenberry v. Frodert
84 Wash. App. 20 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 18, 1996
Because the statute clearly incorporates a hearing into the process, it survives the general constitutional due process challenge. … RCW 9A.82.100(4)(fil(iii) and (5)(c) authorize orders of forfeiture only if the State can establish that the property to be forfeited constitutes “proceeds traceable to or derived from an offense included in the pattern of
Cited 19 timesPublishedSafeco Insurance Co. of America v. Skeen
47 Wash. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 18, 1987
They are part of an Incentive Stock Option plan qualified under the Internal Revenue Code for favorable tax treatment. … The Incentive Stock Option Committee may establish dollar limits on the aggregate amount of SAR's which may be exercised during any one quarter.
Cited 6 timesPublishedAmerican National Fire Insurance v. B & L Trucking & Construction Co.
82 Wash. App. 646 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1996
By the mid-1980s, testing established Fjetland’s landfill was contaminated by arsenic. … The exclusionary language of the qualified pollution exclusion precludes coverage for damage resulting from the listed polluting events.
Cited 15 timesPublishedMichael Mockovak v. King County
Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 2016
While we agree that such documents likely qualify as public records under the state act, that alone does not entitle Mockovak to them. … from disclosure.142 As such, these documents are absolutely immune from disclosure.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished165 Wash. App. 796 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 4, 2012
As Scarpelli *812 indicates, however, such proceedings are not immune from due process concerns and “fundamental fairness—the touchstone of due process”—may require appointment of counsel at public expense in certain cases … Even assuming that Boone, a probation revocation case, applies here, the multiple orders to pay or appear—predating these hearings and signed by Stone—clearly stated his payment obligations and stated that converting his
Cited 18 timesPublishedMark Marlow, et ux v. Douglas County
Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 22, 2013
(c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; (d) The land use decision is a clearly … The Marlows' briefing clearly reveals their challenges.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPersonal Restraint Of Tsai Fen Lee
Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 2023
Because Lee has not established an entitlement to relief, we deny the petition. … Accordingly, she cannot establish that the plea was involuntary. 17
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPenhall Company v. Dep't of Labor & Industries
Court of Appeals of Washington · May 19, 2026
It establishes that “qualifying or modifying words and phrases refer to the last antecedent.” State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 578, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). … In the present case, WAC 296-127-01396 contains the qualifying or modifying phrase “to establish a location, an elevation or grade, distances, and other measurements.” The phrase is not preceded by a comma.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIn The Matter Of The Parental Rights To S.a.m-s.
Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 2025
Again, DCYF clearly understood the limits of Gallagher’s qualifications, actively engaged with J.M.’s concerns, and collaborated with tribal authorities to diligently search for qualified and culturally competent providers … Both the Aleut Community representative and a qualified expert witnesses also supported S.A.M-S. current placement.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedHerrington v. DAVID D. HAWTHORNE, CPA, PS
47 P.3d 567 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 13, 2002
Duke argues that, to qualify as a control person, Duke would have to have had controlling authority in the companies that sold the securities. He is correct. … He argues that his showing that Duke "controlled" Harmon, a person who was clearly a seller, was sufficient. We disagree.
Cited 9 timesPublishedPulcino v. Federal Express Corp.
94 Wash. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 1, 1999
the FAs access to two personnel representatives to assist them in their job search, 2 and that “flight attendants will be considered equally with external candidates for any position at Federal Express for which they are qualified … The trial court erred in limiting her claim to wrongful discharge because Bravo clearly directs that employees be permitted to sue over adverse employment actions which they allege resulted from interference with and coercion
Cited 5 timesPublishedState Of Washington, V. Darryl Glen Peterson
Court of Appeals of Washington · May 19, 2025
The court also told Peterson it was important that counsel and client have good communications, but the court could not discharge his attorney, and Peterson would “need to communicate clearly with [his counsel].” … However, “[n]ot all strategies or tactics on the part of defense counsel are immune from attack.” State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 33-34, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of Washington v. Kathy Ann Hendrickson
Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 1, 2013
Hendrickson qualifY as a public servant by nature of his candidacy, Ms. … An election campaign is clearly not a vote, opinion, or decision. The remaining question is whether it is an "other official action" of a public servant.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDoes 1, 2, 4, 5, Appellants/cross-respondents V. Sam Sueoka, Respondents/cross-appellants
Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2023
Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 808, 246 P.3d 768 (2011) (addressing the argument that provisions of the United States Constitution qualify as “other statutes”). … Indeed, “[i]n the political realm . . . thought and action are presumptively immune from inquisition by political authority.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedBsre Point Wells, Respondent/cross-app V. Snohomish County, Appellant/cross-resp
Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 27, 2022
Proximity is clearly insufficient; functional access is key. … Fourth, and relatedly, BSRE’s interpretation ignores the prior additional qualifying phrase that the increase must be “necessary or desirable.” Former SCC 30.34A.040(1).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna