Case law

Dion Blackburn v. Dep't of Social & Health Services

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 9, 2023

Under numerous circumstances, government officials enjoy qualified immunity from damages liability when charged with constitutional or common law tort liability. … For constitutional torts redressed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, qualified immunity protects an executive actor from liability for her actions as long as she does not violate relevant law “clearly established” at the time of

State v. Iverson

126 Wash. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 7, 2005

Thus, the statement clearly was not admitted to prove the truth of the matter and was not hearsay. *337 ¶17 The statement was nevertheless relevant to explain why the officers, who were by then aware of the protection order … Christopher does not establish that the information is hearsay. ¶27 In State v. Tharp, 26 Wn.

State Of Washington V. American Tobacco Co.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 16, 2023

Words in a contract are given their ordinary, usual, and popular meaning unless the agreement as a whole clearly demonstrates a contrary intent. Bellevue Square, LLC v. … To bring an action for declaratory relief under the UDJA, a party must present a justiciable controversy and establish standing. To-Ro Trade Shows v.

Hitter v. Bellevue School District No. 405

66 Wash. App. 391 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 1992

Once the moving party establishes its initial burden, the party bearing the burden of proof at trial must present evidence sufficient to establish the essential elements of its case in order to withstand summary judgment. … Here, *402 Hitter has failed to establish a prima facie case on either the theory of negligent investigation or the theory of defamation, and therefore has not established any claim that would support an award for emotional

Ripley v. Grays Harbor County

107 Wash. App. 575 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 27, 2001

The County argues that the due care requirement does not apply because, as a governmental entity, it is immune from liability related to road building activities. … But the County clearly acknowledges that the channel and discharge exception extends to situations where the road itself acts as a conduit, collecting, channeling and discharging water that would otherwise flow in a diffuse

McIntyre v. Whatcom County

38 Wash. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 16, 1984

Such proposed charter shall be submitted to the qualified electors of said county, and if a majority of such qualified electors voting thereon ratify the same, it shall become the charter of said county and shall become the … Our state constitution likewise provides: "No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong

State v. Castilla

87 P.3d 1211 · 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

Mears v. Bethel School District No. 403

182 Wash. App. 919 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 12, 2014

The District cross appeals, claiming statutory immunity and arguing that the Mearses’ failure-to-rescue theory precludes Jada’s negligent infliction of *923 emotional distress claim as a matter of law. … The District’s experts conceded that administering epinephrine posed no significant risk of harmful side effects and that an asthma attack may qualify as an “allergic emergency.”

In re the Detention of Leck

180 Wash. App. 492 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 4, 2014

App. at 74 . ¶36 The trial court must determine whether an individual is incarcerated for an act that qualifies as a recent overt act. Marshall, 156 Wn.2d at 158 . … The court’s role under the factual inquiry prong is not that of a fact finder; the court need only review facts already established, including those established in the record of the conviction resulting in incarceration.

Carolyn Sioux Green v. State of Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 14, 2024

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Green’s substantive argument relates to tolling of the statute of limitations and the inapplicability of the ITA’s qualified immunity to PSPH. … As for the ITA’s 3 No. 57429-2-II qualified immunity, Green argues that PSPH cannot rely on immunity when the alleged circumstances of her detention were so egregious

Miranda v. Sims

98 Wash. App. 898 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 18, 2000

Thus, to show a violation of the provisions, a party “ ‘must first establish that the challenged act treats unequally two similarly situated classes of people.’ ” Fell v. … Although the County’s policies provide the family with the opportunity to participate in inquest procedures, their participation, unlike that of the witnesses’, clearly cannot be compelled.

State v. Meredith

259 P.3d 324 · 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.'" … Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 236 , 125 S.Ct. 2317 , 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005). ¶ 56 Under these rules, the trial court's ruling here is clearly erroneous.

Singleton v. Naegeli Reporting Corp.

142 Wash. App. 598 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 15, 2008

It establishes requirements for certification, identifies unprofessional conduct, and provides sanctions for misconduct. … But because the terms of the agreement in the case did not allow disbursal of the earnest money and there was no dispute as to which party was entitled to the funds, the agency that released the funds was not immune from

State v. Temple

5 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1971

No constitu *4 tional or statutory immunity of the witness is at stake. What is at stake is the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. In Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. … Clearly the judge’s admonition was intended to insure that the boy understood questions put to him before he answered them. This was a proper exercise of judicial responsibility to insure a fair trial.

Tlc v. Employment Security Dept.

205 P.3d 924 · 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.

Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 v. Washington State Boundary Review Board

121 Wash. App. 73 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 5, 2004

The property owner petition method of annexation has been held not to violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution in Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. … Regardless of whether the City takes further action to accept the petition, at that stage there has clearly been a “proposed action.”

Puget Sound Rendering, Inc. v. Puget Sound By-Products

26 Wash. App. 724 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 10, 1980

These factors include: (1) whether the trade name was vaguely descriptive or clearly nondescriptive, i.e., the "appropriability" of the name; (2) the originality of the name; (3) whether or not the defendant acted in good … The trial court allowed use of the name when qualified with additional words of a personal or geographic nature, and the defendant complied by changing its name to "Al's Family Mark-It." .

State Of Washington v. Nicholas Windsor Anderson

447 P.3d 176 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 5, 2019

Anderson establishes two errors. A jury must decide whether his prior reckless driving conviction qualifies as a “prior offense” under RCW 46.61 .5055. That did not happen here. And State v. … The State responds that Fleming does not control because, here, it is not at issue whether the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by awarding restitution, for example, for an uncharged crime or for damages clearly

Brown v. Giger

48 Wash. App. 172 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 9, 1987

Ebling used the money to establish a mini-mart and restaurant business in Joyce, Washington. … App. at 925 . ”[T]he 2-hypotheses rule does not apply when a loan contract clearly is usurious on its face, and the only question is whether the facts of the case show that the loan is exempt from the otherwise applicable

Wanda Riley-hordyk v. Bethel School District

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 19, 2015

Therefore, we hold that the hearing officer' s factual conclusion that the District exercised good faith judgment when it decided to close the BOA is not clearly erroneous. … Spanish —and that no teaching positions existed for which she qualified.