Case law

Birgenheier v. Department of Employment Security

28 Wash. App. 911 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 27, 1981

Obviously, these assignments are conducted under the supervision of a qualified (certificated) teacher. … Nevertheless, Congress clearly intended to establish two different eligibility tests; one for employees who perform services in an instructional capacity (contractual guaranty of reemployment in the following academic year

Aetna Finance Co. v. Darwin

38 Wash. App. 921 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 20, 1984

Aetna asserts that the loan is not usurious because it qualifies for the exemption provided in RCW 19.52.080, while Mrs. … Having failed to establish that its loan was exclu *929 sively for commercial or business purposes, Aetna did not meet its burden of proof to qualify for the exemption. 8 Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the trial

Halsted v. Sallee

31 Wash. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 21, 1982

Then, on September 12, 1980, the court entered the *195 following order: It Is Hereby Ordered that Donald Eugene Sallee is divested of all legal rights,.powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations provided by law … The parents must be clearly advised in adequate time to meet that serious issue to prevent surprise, helplessness and disadvantage.

Davies v. Holy Family Hospital

144 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 21, 2008

Davies fails to establish that the radiologist is qualified to render an opinion, and Mr. Davies does not allege specific facts to establish a cause of action. … Davies to produce an affidavit from a qualified expert medical witness alleging specific facts that establish a cause of action. See Guile, 70 Wn. App. at 25 . ¶24 In response, Mr.

Green v. Cowlitz County Civil Service Commission

19 Wash. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 1978

Petitioners below were among the 80 to 100 individuals seeking to qualify by written examination for an eligibility list for the classified position of deputy sheriff. … Coffey's failure to establish a definite time limit in terms of minutes or hours.

State v. Rinaldo

36 Wash. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 21, 1983

We then held that a newspaper has a First Amendment qualified privilege in a civil case. … That the State has excused the perjurious statements of various of its witnesses by granting them immunity from prosecution. 7.

In Re Welfare of MG

201 P.3d 354 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 2009

[or] (11) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. ¶ 31 KS established none of these grounds. … The record also indicates that dependency as to the father was clearly contemplated. The dependency petition named both parents.

Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerran

69 Wash. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 26, 1993

Thus, not only is there no case authority supporting Erickson's claim that MUP and building permit applications are equivalent, established precedent clearly suggests otherwise. … To qualify for such relief the applicant must demonstrate the following: *566 "1.

Nieshe v. Concrete School Dist.

127 P.3d 713 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 9, 2005

The superior court dismissed Nieshe's parents as plaintiffs for lack of standing and the individual defendants based on qualified immunity. … Weisman. [32] In Lee, the Court was asked to decide whether including prayer as part of a high school graduation ceremony contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. [33] To be consistent with the Establishment

Leinum v. Continental Casualty Co.

2 Wash. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 2, 1970

or employment for wage or profit for which he was, on or before the date 1 of injury reasonably qualified by reason of education, training or experience. … Co., 67 Wn.2d 60 , 406 P.2d 628 (1965) where the term “any occupation” clearly means considerably more than his regular and customary occupation.

State v. Carmen

77 P.3d 368 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 6, 2003

The admissibility of the documents turned on whether the convictions so established qualified as predicate convictions for purposes of RCW 26.50.110(5). … These are clearly questions for the court and not the jury.

State v. Carmen

118 Wash. App. 655 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 6, 2003

The admissibility of the documents turned on whether the convictions so established qualified as predicate convictions for purposes of RCW 26.50.110(5). … These are clearly questions for the court and not the jury.

Language Connection, LLC v. Employment Security Department

149 Wash. App. 575 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 2009

To qualify as an “employer,” an entity must have persons in “employment.” RCW 50.04.080. … Once it is established that an entity has persons in employment, then the entity qualifies as an employer and it will be liable for contributions unless it can prove that an exemption applies.

Medical Consultants Northwest, Inc. v. State

89 Wash. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 5, 1997

Ed. 539 (1880). *45 Here, the finding that MCN’s clients assumed sole liability for paying the physicians is clearly supported by the stipulated facts. … The Legislature has since enacted a statute that waives this immunity and specifically authorizes interest to be paid on tax refunds.

State Of Washington v. Tommie Lewis

194 Wash. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 27, 2016

Our Supreme Court has held the right to equal protection guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution are "substantially identical and considered … RCW 43.43.754(2) provides, "If the Washington state patrol crime laboratory already has a DNA sample from an individual for a qualifying offense, a subsequent submission is not required to be submitted."

State v. Wilson

9 Wash. App. 909 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 5, 1973

Wilson’s principal contention on appeal is that his constitutional immunity from unreasonable search and seizure was violated. … Such a determination requires an assessment of credibility and is therefore one for which the trial judge is uniquely qualified. We are aware of Justice Brennan’s observation in Miller v.

Bennett v. SEATTLE MENTAL HEALTH

166 Wash. App. 477 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 6, 2012

The child wrongful death statute only applies to the beneficiaries "`clearly contemplated by the statute.'" Masunaga v. … Douglas was, by one degree, not close enough to qualify them as beneficiaries. ¶ 37 This result ignores the realities of modern life entirely, and again immunizes negligence so long as it results in death. ¶ 38 But it is

Burchfiel v. Boeing Corp.

149 Wash. App. 468 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 2, 2009

Burchfiel suffered a qualifying disability. The trial court erred in concluding to the contrary. … The court also instructed the jury that to establish unlawful retaliation Mr.

State v. Fish

99 Wash. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 18, 1999

Fish also argues that because the State granted transactional immunity to Shawlee Westmoreland, it should have done the same for Baxter. … The decision to grant immunity is vested with the prosecution, and a defendant has no right to demand immunity for a defense witness in order to obtain exculpatory testimony unless a court finds the prosecutor’s misconduct

Hinderer v. Ryan

7 Wash. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 28, 1972

A breach of warranty may be established without proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. … Upon retrial, if the evidence justifies the giving of both instructions, care should be given that the two warranties are clearly distinguished in the court’s instructions and the jury told that proof of a breach of one or