Case law

State v. Sipin

130 Wash. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 21, 2005

. ¶28 Under the Frye test, scientific evidence is admissible if it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, but not admissible if there is a significant dispute among qualified experts as to its validity … Fairness to the State dictates that the State be permitted to try again to establish the reliability of the evidence. See, e.g., People v. Reilly, 196 Cal. App. 3d 1127, 1133 , 242 Cal.

State Of Washington, V. Tim Eyman

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 28, 2023

The committee hired Citizen Solutions to collect signatures to help I-1185 qualify to For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. … However, although Eyman clearly solicited donations to Citizens in Charge, the State points to no evidence that people actually made donations to Citizens in Charge to support I-517.

Skamania County, Res/cross-app V. Mitchell Dean Patton & Staci Lee Patton, App/cross-res

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 2022

Because Patton did not prevail on the due process claim, Patton does not qualify for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. … “[T]he presence of reasonable allegations in a suit does not immunize the plaintiff against paying for the fees that his frivolous claims imposed.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 834, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 180 L.

Erik Solberg & Megan Solberg v. River Park Estates Property Owners Ass'n

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 10, 2025

“[N]o particular words are necessary to constitute a grant of easement,” provided the document clearly establishes an intention to give an easement. McPhaden v. Scott, 95 Wn. App. 431, 435, 975 P.2d 1033 (1999). … Further, River Park fails to direct us to any other document that would qualify as an “easement[] of record” related to the Entrance Easement. CP at 109.

Matthew Hink, V. Melody Rude

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 18, 2021

Even if the background facts that Hink testified to could have potentially established more than harassment, Hink did not seek relief based on those facts. … Instead, he sought relief solely based on Rude’s continued harassment by text message, which would not qualify as an act of domestic violence.

State Of Washington v. Lorenzo Stewart

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 25, 2016

Thus, the overwhelming evidence established that Stewart brandished a four-inch knife at Miller. … Indeed, the trial evidence clearly showed Stewart actually used the knife during the robbery.

Outsource Services Management, Llc. v. Nooksack Business Corporation

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 2017

We give words "their ordinary, usual, and popular meaning unless the entirety of the agreement clearly demonstrates a contrary intent." … Specifically, NBC contends that its waiver of sovereign immunity is limited.54 50 Appellant's Br. at 40. 51Caine & Weiner v. Barker, 42 Wn.

State Of Washington v. Delante Ian Howerton

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2015

For instance, in Z.U.E., the court found one informant's tip unreliable when the record failed to clearly establish the basis for the informant's knowledge. Z.U.E.. 178 Wn. App. at 785. … The record here clearly establishes Parks's basis of knowledge. Unlike the first informant in Z.U.E..

State Of Washington, V. Tony Rico Sanders

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 8, 2025

Before the hearing concluded, Sanders’s public defender informed him “you were not qualified for the public defender so our representation will cease now. You’ll have to find private counsel.” … The court finds that the defendant clearly conveyed to law enforcement that he wished to speak to them.

Estate of Susan Hunter v. Allstate Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 7, 2016

Hunter both a check reimbursing her premium payment and notice of cancellation effective August 7, 2004, stating "[y]our mobile home does not qualify for an Allstate Landlord Package policy," Mr. Schlagel told Ms. … While the estate might have had a legitimate concern that its 2012 complaint raised supplemental matters, including an IFCA claim that had not been spelled out previously, Allstate clearly stipulated over the course of

Di Pietro Trucking Co. v. Department of Labor

135 Wash. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 24, 2006

Unlike the majority of states, Washington’s workers’ compensation program is state administered. 8 This state-administered fund is the sole means of obtaining industrial insurance coverage in our state unless the employer qualifies … Legislative approval ¶39 Furthermore, in WR Enterprises, our Supreme Court not only expressly approved risk pooling as a recognized insurance principle but also clearly rejected the principle Di Pietro advances here — that

Brin v. Stutzman

89 Wash. App. 809 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 2, 1998

Brin’s counsel clearly understood the distinction between a formal investment adviser-client relationship and the facts of this case. … To that end, a defendant should not be held immune from a statute because he defrauds his first or only client.

Joyce v. State, Dept. of Corrections

64 P.3d 1266 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 11, 2003

The trial court was satisfied that Stough's experience as a DOC correctional officer and supervisor qualified him to so testify. … The State objected to the giving of Instruction No. 20. [34] The instruction clearly misinformed the jury regarding the CCO's authority to arrest Stewart on the CCO's mere belief that Stewart appeared to present a danger

State v. Williams

201 P.3d 371 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 2009

To qualify as a cohabitant for purposes of common authority, a person must possess equal control over the premises. Id. at 18, 123 P.3d 832 (Fairhurst, J., concurring) (citing State v. … As the facts here clearly demonstrate, however, the officers initially entered Graham's room with his consent to protect Graham and to aid him in evicting his violent nephew.

City Of Seattle, Appellant/cr-respondent v. S. Michael Kunath, Respondent/cr-appellant

444 P.3d 1235 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 15, 2019

And even after the Oulliton decision clearly stated income is intangible property, the legislature enacted the net income tax at issue in Jensen. See Jensen, 185 Wash. at 211, 215-16 (citing LAWS OF 1935, ch. 178). … The fact that Seattle residents do not have to pay the income tax neither establishes nor preserves a common fund.

State of Washington v. Charles David Fletcher

198 Wash. App. 157 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 16, 2017

In those instances where the secretary recommends conditional release, the prosecutor bears the burden of establishing that conditional release is not appropriate. Id. … Fletcher secretary shall direct qualified professionals to examine the committed person every six months for purposes of assessing possible release.

Ana Zavala v. Twin City Foods

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 12, 2015

Zavala established that her arthritis was lit up? … Clearly, there is a basis to conclude that Ms. Zavala is not an accurate historian. For all of the above reasons, I am upholding the [B]oard decision.

Phillips 66 Company, V. Whatcom County Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 28, 2022

The authority of the hearing examiner is established in WCC 2.11.010 et seq. … That case is clearly inapposite. 6 Phillips 66 also argues that, under WCC 16.08.170(4), the hearing examiner can reverse the SEPA DNS threshold determination only if it is clearly erroneous.

Yakima County v. David M. Church

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 10, 2024

Because this is clearly a constitutional issue, we address the merits. 18 No. 39613-4-III Yakima County v. Church, et al. … The Michigan court answered that such a road qualified as a public use.

David Hancock, App./x-resp. V. Ardent Law Group, Pllc, Resps./x-apps.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 10, 2023

Under RCW 4.24.510, a person who communicates a complaint or information to any branch of government is immune from civil liability for claims based on the communication. … Weinstein asserted statutory -25- No. 82756-1-I/26 immunity as a defense.