Case law

State v. Steen

164 Wash. App. 789 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2011

To qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled. Hiibel, 542 U.S. at 189 . An incriminating communication is “ ‘any disclosure! … The trial court’s instruction clearly communicated to the jury that it could not convict Steen based solely on his refusal to answer questions. Accordingly, Steen did not suffer prejudice. Johanson, J., concurs.

Terry Miller v. City of Richland

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 4, 2025

RCW 36.70C.130(1) applies, let alone establish that it has met that standard” provided basis to deny review). … A “clearly erroneous” determination under subsection (d) requires this court to apply the law to facts. Id.

State Of Washington v. Zahid Aziz Khan

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 12, 2019

He was nonetheless able to clearly express his defense. 4. … To establish prejudice from the lack of an interpreter, the defendant must establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial [would] have been different if an interpreter

Teresa Marie Lynd, V. Jeffery Leo Lynd

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 21, 2022

Given that polygraphs are widely recognized as unreliable, Jeffery cannot establish that Exhibit 140 had sufficient “circumstantial guaranties of trustworthiness” to qualify for admission under ER 904, even if he properly … Thus, Jeffery fails to establish error. H.

State Of Washington, V. Tyrone D'angelo Babbs Jr.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 9, 2025

However, Atkinson subsequently sought and qualified for housing in a tiny home2 as a single person. Due to COVID restrictions at the time, Atkinson was not allowed to bring guests to the tiny home. … The record clearly shows that Atkinson’s trailer burned down. Babbs does not dispute that this element of arson is met.

Brewhaha Bellevue, Llc. v. Wanda Montgomery

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 8, 2016

The sole legal question is whether Ta'ryah qualifies as a statutory beneficiary to sustain DeShawn's wrongful death lawsuit. … Whether Ta'riyah qualifies as a statutory beneficiary under RCW 4.20.020 The main issue in this appeal is whether Ta'riyah qualifies as a statutory beneficiary to sustain DeShawn's wrongful death claim.

State of Washington v. Matthew Henry DeVore

413 P.3d 58 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 2018

Third, DeVore maintains that the trial court imposed a clearly excessive sentence. In the published portion of this opinion, we 9 No. 34728-1-III State v. … An exceptional sentence is not justified if it is based on factors necessarily considered by the legislature in establishing the standard sentence range. State v. Law, 154 Wn.2d 85, 95, 110 P.3d 717 (2005).

American Express Centurion Bank v. Heinz Hengstler

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 9, 2017

In other words, the custodian of the records or other qualified witness must testify to (1) the record’s identity; (2) its mode of preparation; (3) whether it was made in the regular course of business; and (4) whether … “The use of a credit card, if sufficiently detailed and itemized, constitutes acceptance of terms clearly stated in a cardmember agreement.” Stratman, 172 Wn.

D. Norman Ferguson, Et Ux v. Allen Mckenzie, Et Ux

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2016

It clearly did not rely solely on written or graphic evidence. It clearly found that the photographs were susceptible to more than one interpretation. … “Evidence tending to establish a party’s theory, or to qualify or disprove the testimony of an adversary, is relevant evidence.” Hayes, 105 Wn. App. at 617.

Kim Tosch v. Ywca Pierce County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 2015

First, the employee must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Scrivener, 181 Wn.2d at 446. … Clark College articulated " ambiguous reasons for not hiring Scrivener" to fill the tenured position when it claimed that the other candidates were clearly qualified and were the ' best

State Of Washington v. Christopher Lewis Locken

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 17, 2017

The testimony of Solis and his wife, Megan McAdams, was essential to establishing Solis was actually struck or was placed in fear of bodily injury. … But, it held that any messages sent from Locken to Solis were not hearsay, because they qualified as admissions of a party opponent.

Kirsten Wiley v. Microsoft Corporation

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 10, 2014

"You're clearly delivering great results for MSR and for the company, in a tough and rapidly changing environment." CP at 1021, (2009 review)). … As for K.B., Wiley does not show that she sought the position or, that if she did, K.K. was less qualified than her. In any event, K.K.'

Personal Restraint Petition of Alejandro Antonio Guzman

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 30, 2014

"A finger is clearly 'an object.'" State v. Tili, 139 Wn.2d 107, 111 n.3, 985 P.2d 365 (1999). Each victim testified that during the course of Mr. … The State established that Ms. Mason worked as a certified educational school counselor and had been employed as a licensed mental health therapist for seven years.

Northwest Hospital, V. Minnie Thomas And Lawrence Williams

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 25, 2022

However, Thomas’s June 10, 2021 notice of appeal in this consolidated case clearly requests review of the court’s order granting the dismissal and her briefing establishes that she believed the dismissal was improper. … However, the ITA also provides immunity for evaluation and treatment facilities so long as those “duties were performed in good faith and without gross negligence.” RCW 71.05.120(1).

State Of Washington, V. Josiah Paul Sweeney

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 4, 2025

Severe, Diagnosed but Untreated, Mental Illness Sweeney asserts that the trial court erred in determining that Sweeney failed to prove a schizophrenia diagnosis and, thus, erred in finding that Sweeney did not qualify … Clearly, Sweeney’s counsel recognized that Sweeney may have suffered from a mental health illness and took reasonable steps to evaluate both competency and the viability of relative defenses prior to trial.

Zaid Woldemicael, V. State Department Of Social And Health Services

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 8, 2021

The record shows that Woldemicael’s attorney at the time specifically asked if the settlement agreement affected the Win home, and the Department clearly answered that it prohibited Woldemicael from contracting with the … Under the EAJA, “a court shall award a qualified party that prevails in a judicial review of an agency action fees and other expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the agency action

In Re The Marriage Of Chad M. Burton, V Deborah R. Burton

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 4, 2014

She claims that he was the more qualified witness and had worked extensively with the family, and that she wanted him to testify. … Clearly, Chad paid more than the child support schedule in RCW 26. 19. 020 required at that time ($ 2, 760).

Tom Butler & Linda Lewis v. Skagit County & Hazel Ford

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 5, 2016

Also located here are provisions stating what is required to establish a reasonable use exception. Former SCC 14.16.850(4)(f)(i- iii). … The County responds that Ford satisfied the setback requirements of the code by qualifying for a variance from those requirements.

In Re The Dep Of N.a., John Ackah, App v. Dshs

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 22, 2018

s best interest, finding that Harris "is not qualified, appropriate and capable of performing the duties of guardian." The court entered the following supporting findings of fact: 2.4.1 Ms. … Harris' inability to clearly communicate with professionals involved in [N.A.'

Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Pac. Cnty., Mun. Corp. v. Comcast of Wash. Iv, Inc.

438 P.3d 1212 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 2019

Although the parties dispute whether safety space should qualify as unusable space, they both agree that the support and clearance space referenced in subsection (3)(a) means unusable space. … However, the record clearly shows that the Companies withdrew their position on this issue during the remand trial.