Case law

State Of Washington v. Thomas Joseph Feely

192 Wash. App. 751 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 22, 2016

Certainly he was endangering Trooper Lipton, and perhaps during a part of that, he was endangering Officer Pike, because Officer Pike was behind *760 Lipton and suddenly found a tire coming his way, but those would, not qualify … But Feely does not establish he is entitled to relief on appeal.

Mason v. King County

142 P.3d 637 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2006

A court may grant relief on a land use decision only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the following standards is met: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged … KCC 19A.28.020(C)(2) prohibits approval of a BLA that would "[r]esult in a lot that does not qualify as a building site pursuant to [KCC Title 19A]."

J-U-B Engineers, Inc. v. Routsen

69 Wash. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 23, 1993

This court cannot grant a judgment, even by default, when it clearly has no merit. (Citations omitted.) For all practical purposes, the court sua sponte raised a defense for Dr. … Routson, having suffered only a default at this point, can move to set aside the order of default pursuant to CR 55(c)(1) for the purpose of presenting a defense of qualified privilege.

STATE ON BEHALF OF SIGLER v. Sigler

85 Wash. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 1997

A *334 statute is presumed constitutional; thus, the party challenging it bears the burden of establishing the constitutional violation. Campos, 75 Wn. App. at 384 . … The Supreme Court has clearly indicated that laws which do not place direct restrictions on an individual’s ability to exercise a right do not constitute a direct and substantial interference. See Bowen v.

State v. Fish

992 P.2d 505 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 22, 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

Fowlkes v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 76

58 Wash. App. 759 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 13, 1990

Members violating any rule or plan established shall be penalized as decided by the Executive Board. … The 3-month statute of limitations is clearly inappropriate.

State v. Walker

11 Wash. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 22, 1974

“The defense does not so much establish innocence as grant immunity from prosecution for criminal acts concededly committed.” Carbajal-Portillo v. United States, 396 F.2d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 1968). … The evidence did not lead the trial court to find that the officers had crossed the line into the precluded area where it followed that the motivation to violate the law had come from government. *89 Clearly entrapment is

Olch v. Pacific Press & Shear Co.

19 Wash. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 23, 1978

Clearly certain independent obligations run with the sale from the manufacturer to the buyer. … Thus, immunizing the employer from a third-party indemnity complaint constitutes an unequal division of responsibility.

Anna Chester v. Deep Roots Tatoo & Body Modification

193 Wash. App. 147 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 4, 2016

Chester argues in the alternative that she established the elements of common law negligence. … Dinges then draws the conclusion that, in the circumstances of the present case, "clearly 'sterile instruments' were not used."

To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins

100 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2000

The court also dismissed the section 1983 claim, ruling that the State had qualified immunity. … The court concluded: [The statute is] directed essentially to students, who desire to qualify so as to secure a license to act as a hairdresser and to engage in the practice of beauty culture, rather than to beauty schools

Svendgard v. Department of Licensing

122 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2004

cannot meet the essential requirements to qualify for a license. … Contrary to the defendants’ position, the record establishes that plaintiff’s counsel clearly explained this theory and the distinction between qualifying for a commercial driver’s license and successfully participating in

Linville v. State

151 P.3d 1073 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 6, 2007

No COMMON LAW DUTY ¶ 17 At common law, the State was immune from lawsuit. At common law, "it is not a tort for government to govern" or, conversely, not to govern. Evangelical United Brethren Church v. … The daycare operators here, however, already had liability insurance from the voluntary insurance market; thus, they would have neither needed nor qualified for JUA assistance.

Svendgard v. State

122 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2004

cannot meet the essential requirements to qualify for a license. … SCHINDLER, J., and GROSSE, J., concur. *372-376 NOTES [1] Contrary to the defendants' position, the record establishes that plaintiff's counsel clearly explained this theory and the distinction between qualifying for a commercial

State v. Harris

6 P.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2000

Finally, it is well established that the court is not bound by the plea agreement. See RCW 9.94A.090(2); Sledge, 133 Wash.2d at 839 n. 6, 947 P.2d 1199 . 2. … Of course, the Government may — and quite readily can — `agree' through its agents that only certain of its agents are to be obligated in particular respects, or that the Government's obligation is otherwise qualified."

Richard Fortin, V. Callum Herdson

530 P.3d 220 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 30, 2023

The trial court determined that Fortin was not entitled to immunity under the business judgment rule, and that Herdson was entitled to relief because he had “established a probable right in … The record establishes that no party brought a motion seeking permission from this court.

In re the Welfare of L.N.B.-L.

157 Wash. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2010

and Health Services (Department) *223 failed to establish several elements of RCW 13.34.180(1) 3 and ICWA. … One case clearly does not support KL’s assertion, stating, “[W]e do not hold that an expert ICWÁ witness qualified under subpart three of the Guidelines must be fluent in the cultural standards of a particular Indian tribe

Brian P. Winkler v. James "Jim" B. Demeerleer

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. … Subsection (2) clearly addresses the same case law duty.

Towle v. Department of Fish & Wildlife

94 Wash. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 19, 1999

Although the Department argues on appeal that the record before us does not establish that Towle geared up for some other fishery, this assertion is not accurate. … The Department clearly had the opportunity to elicit any facts damaging to Towle’s explanation of his activities, but it chose not to.

City of Fife v. Hicks

186 Wash. App. 122 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 24, 2015

On the contrary, the court expressly noted that “Ames made a sufficient showing to establish” that the records qualified as “specific investigative records.” 71 Wn. … Under these precedents, the materials qualify as specific investigative records. B.

State v. Castilla

121 Wash. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 2004

DISCUSSION Treatment Session The principal issue here is Castilla’s contention that the evidence did not establish that sexual intercourse occurred during a “treatment session.” … The State presented evidence establishing that CNAs at NARC are responsible for “the hands-on care, activities of daily living, dressing, bathing, grooming, [and] assistance with feeding.” 6 CNAs are expected to respond to