Case law

State v. Franks

7 Wash. App. 594 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 25, 1972

The qualifications and authorization for appointment of judges pro tempore of district justice courts are established by statute. … Clearly, defendant was lawfully arrested after incriminating evidence had been found in the lawful search of the trailer because there was, at that point, probable cause to arrest the person known to be in dominion and control

State v. Ortega

84 P.3d 935 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 17, 2004

However, further finding that the victim's age had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt by the Texas jury, the court ruled that the decision in Apprendi v. … Consequently, the court found that the Texas crime as charged was not clearly comparable to first degree child molestation, and did not count it as a first strike for the purposes of POAA.

State v. Meredith

165 Wash. App. 704 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 9, 2011

A single invidiously discriminatory governmental act’ is not ‘immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.’ ” Batson, 476 U.S. at 95 (quoting Vill. of Arlington Heights v. … Ed. 2d 196 (2005). ¶25 Under these rules, the trial court’s ruling here is clearly erroneous.

Peters v. South Kitsap School District No. 402

8 Wash. App. 809 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 1973

The factual foundation for these conclusions established that appellant held a valid secondary school teaching certificate. He was qualified in four subjects — Spanish, Social Studies, English, and Study Hall. … In June, 1971, vacancies arose but appellant could not qualify for any of the vacancies that existed because he was not qualified to teach the combination of subjects required for the specific vacancies.

Shoreline Community College District No. 7 v. Employment Security Department

59 Wash. App. 65 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 27, 1990

The Commissioner's unchallenged finding, which is a verity, establishes that Pelto worked 770 hours for the College in 1986. … This finding supports the Commissioner's conclusion that Pelto met the minimum hours requirement of and established a "benefit year" under RCW 50.04.030.

Moe v. Wise

97 Wash. App. 950 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 19, 1999

Clearly, there may be tactical reasons for a Chapter 11 debtor to emphasize different points in communicating with different creditors in different circumstances. … But once the defendant establishes a qualified privilege, to prove the abuse of that privilege even a private figure plaintiff must satisfy the higher clear and convincing standard otherwise applied only to public figure

Volk v. DeMeerleer

184 Wash. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 13, 2014

It does not provide immunity but withholds the immunity afforded in subsection 1 in a narrow circumstance. … James Knoll is a qualified mental health professional, and Ashby does not challenge Knoll’s credentials. ¶94 Dr. Ashby questions Dr.

Jackson v. Harvey

72 Wash. App. 507 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 10, 1994

Jackson does not fit into this exception, so he is clearly a "worker" under the title. … A worker's bare assertion of belief that he or she worked for this or that employer does not establish an employment relationship.

State v. Hughes

118 Wash. App. 713 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 14, 2003

Hughes also indicated that he had some understanding of the legal implications of his involvement in the case and should be awarded immunity for his statement. 6 Harper clearly asked if Hughes was promised immunity, to which … Here, the court ruled that because no one granted Hughes immunity, no one could argue the issue. The prosecutor, not Hughes, sought to admit the immunity discussion in order to refer to it in closing arguments.

City of Seattle v. Eun Yong Shin

50 Wash. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 4, 1988

Under RCW 26.44.060, persons making such a *227 report are immune from any civil or criminal liability arising out of reporting. … At most, RCW 26.44 grants immunity to parents for any liability that might arise out of their use of the reporting procedures that statute creates.

LAKEVIEW v. Apartment Sales Corp.

6 P.3d 74 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 14, 2000

Lakeview thus establishes no basis for any approach other than the straightforward application of the statute employed by the trial court. … have since reached the same result. [46] (There are thoughtful discussions in several cases, considering various arguments on both sides of this issue. [47] ) Lakeview contends the reasoning of those later cases was not clearly

Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish County

32 Wash. App. 279 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 21, 1982

This statute, RCW 7.16.260, does not, however, establish either a new cause of action or an automatic right of recovery. … Rather, it simply establishes the procedure for recovery of damages based on recognized and established causes of action. See Miller v. Pacific Cy., supra at 746-47; State ex rel. Bond v.

Everett v. Abbey

108 Wash. App. 521 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 21, 2001

State, 116 Wn.2d 596 , 809 P.2d 143 (1991)] immunity and/or a qualified immunity. 3. … This last statement clearly indicates that the reference court did not believe that it had fully and finally litigated the issues regarding child interview techniques.

Gennoe v. Sypolt

60 Wash. App. 517 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 4, 1991

Nor is Stauber entitled to establish that some of the defendants' conduct did not involve questions of workplace supervision, military regulations, remedies provided under those regulations, and military decisionmaking. … On appeal, Stauber has failed to show that this finding was clearly erroneous.

State v. Hughes

77 P.3d 681 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 14, 2003

Hughes also indicated that he had some understanding of the legal implications of his involvement in the case and should be awarded immunity for his statement. [6] Harper clearly asked if Hughes was promised immunity, to … Here, the court ruled that because no one granted Hughes immunity, no one could argue the issue. The prosecutor, not Hughes, sought to admit the immunity discussion in order to refer to it in closing arguments.

State v. Baird

83 Wash. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 9, 1996

He attempted to introduce an illegally-taped telephone conversation between Susan and an unidentified man Baird believed to be her lover, not to prove that Susan was having an affair, 1 but rather to establish his state of … Finally, Baird argues that the length of his sentence is clearly excessive.

Department of Social & Health Services v. Stratmeyer

46 Wash. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 9, 1987

The provision does no more than establish who has standing to challenge those proceedings. Furthermore, de novo review of such matters is contrary to Washington law. See Todd v. … The court concluded that these were "qualified expert witnesses" for the purposes of the ICWA. Fisher , at 553. Elaine Fiddler was well qualified within the meaning of the statute.

New West Fisheries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

106 Wash. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 18, 2001

In this case, the purpose is clearly for unemployment and workers’ compensation and the Department of Revenue rightfully denied the credits. … To qualify for a credit, the owner of the enhanced food fish must have documentation showing a tax was paid in another jurisdiction. RCW 82.27.040 (emphasis added).

Youker v. Douglas County

162 Wash. App. 448 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 18, 2011

as a matter of law with respect to a given defendant if it clearly appears that the defendant provided the prosecuting attorney with a full and fair disclosure, in good faith, of all the material facts known to him or her … App. 38, 39 , 708 P.2d 407 (1985). ¶39 Officers enjoy a qualified immunity against liability for false arrest and imprisonment.

Whatcom County v. Taxpayers of the Whatcom County Solid Waste Disposal District

66 Wash. App. 284 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 6, 1992

The constitution clearly permits the Legislature to delegate the power to "other municipal corporations" to assess and collect taxes. Const. art. 11, § 12. … To establish a violation of the equal protection clause, "a party must first establish that the challenged act treats unequally two similarly situated classes of people." Cosro, 107 Wn.2d at 760 .