Case law

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

Keegan v. Grant County Public Utility District No. 2

34 Wash. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 17, 1983

A witness may be qualified as an expert by his knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. ER 702. The PUD established that Mr. … Courts have the authority to limit issues on a new trial in those cases where it clearly appears that the original issues were distinct and separate from each other and that justice does not require the resubmission of the

Stork v. International Bazaar, Inc.

54 Wash. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 30, 1989

Based on these qualifications, Hong stated that Stork was not qualified to be a store manager. … Also in exhibit 5, the defendants listed reasons why Stork was not qualified for the store manager position and why Kim was qualified.

Limstrom v. Ladenburg

110 Wash. App. 133 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 1, 2002

Second, what qualifies as exempt work product under RCW 42.17.310(l)(j) and Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 136 Wn.2d 595 , 963 P.2d 869 (1998). … Mandatory Discovery in Criminal Cases Absent Washington case law on waiver of work product immunity, we look to other jurisdictions.

Hunter v. University of Washington

101 Wash. App. 283 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2000

The University’s regulations affect Vietnam veteran students as a class and qualify a benefit that is conferred by law. … assuming that its ability to decide whether to confer tuition reductions translates into its ability to adopt further restrictions without complying with the rule-making procedures required by the APA. 3 The Legislature has clearly

Toulou v. Department of Social & Health Services

27 Wash. App. 137 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 19, 1980

Thus, that finding could appear to be clearly erroneous. … of equal protection since she has already qualified and is denied her right to dispose of her resources as she sees fit for her proper debts and remain qualified.

State v. Whitfield

134 P.3d 1203 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 16, 2006

PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ¶ 31 Whitfield also contends that RCW 9A.36.011(1)(b) violates our constitution's privileges and immunities clause because it grants a special privilege or immunity to those with a sexually transmitted … "A punishment is grossly disproportionate only if . . . the punishment is clearly arbitrary and shocking to the sense of justice." State v.

Towle v. STATE DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

971 P.2d 591 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 19, 1999

It set forth both poundage and landing criteria for determining which crab fishers would qualify as having historically and continuously participated in the fishery and designated four preceding years as the qualifying seasons … The Department clearly had the opportunity to elicit any facts damaging to Towle's explanation of his activities, but it chose not to. [13] In Hensel, we interpreted the sea urchin limited entry statute, RCW 75.30.210, a

State v. Hillman

66 Wash. App. 770 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 1992

excessive or clearly too lenient. … Finally, the determination of whether the sentence was clearly excessive or clearly too lenient is reviewed under the "abuse of discretion" standard. Batista, 116 Wn.2d at 792 .

State v. Whitfield

132 Wash. App. 878 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 16, 2006

Privileges and Immunities ¶31 Whitfield also contends that RCW 9A.36.011(1) (b) violates our constitution’s privileges and immunities clause because it grants a special privilege or immunity to those with a sexually transmitted … “A punishment is grossly disproportionate only if. . . the punishment is clearly arbitrary and shocking to the sense of justice.” State v.

State v. Iverson

108 P.3d 799 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 10, 2005

Thus, the statement clearly was not admitted to prove the truth of the matter, and was not hearsay. ¶ 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.

State v. Pittman

88 Wash. App. 188 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 1997

According to Pittman, marijuana stimulated her appetite, helping her maintain her proper weight and immune function. … He stated: But, clearly, if marijuana is capable of making an anorexic hungry it’s capable of making a person with cancer hungry or a person with AIDS hungry.

Hampson v. Snell

128 Wash. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2005

In February 2003, Hampson filed a peti *411 tion to establish the parentage of MS. … But she declined to rule on the issue, stating “So I think the cases are clearly distinguishable, and I think the statute controls.

Cox v. City of Lynnwood

72 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 13, 1993

Such ordinance must be strictly construed in favor of property owners and should not be extended by implication to cases not clearly within their scope and purpose." Morin v. … The Coxes sold their lots, and the sales price compared to the value of the lots when the BLA was denied established the Coxes' loss within a reasonable degree of certainty.

Burchfiel v. Boeing Corp.

205 P.3d 145 · 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.

Hunter v. University of Washington

2 P.3d 1022 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2000

The University's regulations affect Vietnam veteran students as a class and qualify a *1025 benefit that is conferred by law. … assuming that its ability to decide whether to confer tuition reductions translates into its ability to adopt further restrictions without complying with the rule-making procedures required by the APA. [3] The Legislature has clearly

State of Washington v. Aaron L. Linder

190 Wash. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 13, 2015

Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1,9,653 P.2d 1024 (1982), our Supreme Court, surveying prior cases, observed that "we have not limited the exclusionary rule to protection of the constitutional immunity from unreasonable search (or seizure … Linder Bonds had "little hesitation in concluding that [those] costs clearly outweigh the limited benefits which would be obtained from excluding the confession because of the illegal arrest." Id. at 14.

Activate, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

150 Wash. App. 807 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 16, 2009

“Actual consumption was not necessary; a preparatory act alone was sufficient to establish an intervening use.” Seattle Film-Works, 106 Wn. App. at 459 . … Finally, in its brief, DOR also notes that Rule 116(7)(d) provides a specific example that “clearly indicates [DOR’s] position on a similar transaction.” See Resp’t’s Br. at 35.

Donaldson v. City of Seattle

65 Wash. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 1992

Duty To Continue Investigation While the DVPA clearly establishes a mandatory duty to arrest, this case presents a question as to what the scope of that duty is. … Second, while the City clearly owed Leola a duty pursuant to the DVPA, the Value Village robbery was not *676 related to this duty and Donaldson can establish no general duty to arrest Barnes for robbery.

State v. Ward

55 Wash. App. 382 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 1989

Goodman's testimony because all three factors established by State v. Moon, 1 45 Wn. App. 692, 697 , 726 P.2d 1263 (1986), are satisfied; therefore, it was error to exclude such testimony. … First, the fact pattern of this case is not close and confusing: three witnesses identified Ward in connection with four robberies; Ward presented one potential alibi witness; and the testimony presented clearly set forth