Case law

Pasco v. Department of Retirement Systems

110 Wash. App. 582 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 22, 2002

Second, RCW 41.26.030(28) and (29), respectively, established an effective date to end LEOFF Plan 1 and established LEOFF Plan 2 for new employees after October 1, 1977. … Thus, Crabtree allowed members to qualify for Plan 1 after the cut-off date, even though the teachers did not establish membership eligibility before October 1, 1977. [12] Similarly, Andres was not "certified" as having met

Gorre v. City of Tacoma

180 Wash. App. 729 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 23, 2014

Our legislature has clearly stated its intent to provide benefits for firefighters, whose jobs constantly expose them to a broad range of dangers while protecting the public; and again, we are to construe these benefits liberally … To ensure that Gorre receives the legislature’s clearly intended benefit of RCW 51.32.185(1), we remand to the Board to reconsider Gorre’s application for industrial insurance benefits, with instruc *767 tions to accord Gorre

Fraser v. Monroe

1 Wash. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 1969

Essentially, plaintiff contends that ROA 33 (similar to CAROA. 33 in this court) precludes the defendants from assigning error to a finding of fact without also filing a cross-appeal and properly qualifying as cross-appellants … Furthermore, the record before us clearly demonstrates that such a continuous and automatic flow of events did not occur in this instance.

State Of Washington v. Alan D. Jenks

12 Wash. App. 2d 588 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 3, 2020

Based on his experience, training, and job responsibilities, we conclude that Michaud was qualified to offer expert testimony. … Whether a defendant had a prior strike offense under the POAA clearly is a fact of a prior conviction.

To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins

997 P.2d 960 · 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

Morton v. McFall

115 P.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 5, 2005

Rasch is not qualified to testify as to the standard of care for either a pulmonologist (Dr. Joseph) or a surgeon (Dr. … Rasch is qualified to testify by virtue of her experience and specialty. Dr.

State v. Jones

96 Wash. App. 369 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 6, 1999

The qualified privilege under RCW 5.60.060(5) does not apply.” Id. at 884 (emphasis added). … In holding that the records were exempt, the Supreme Court clearly relied on these “factual verities” established by the trial court.

Corey Mcgrath, V. City Of Sultan

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 10, 2025

McGrath argues that the immunity statute does not apply because the City charges a fee to reserve the basketball court, and so the City cannot establish the third element for immunity, that “no fee of any kind” was charged … Moreover, precluding liability in this case accords with the legislative intent in establishing recreational use immunity.

Berrocal v. Fernandez

120 Wash. App. 555 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 11, 2004

The burden of establishing an exemption is on the employer. Stahl v. Delicor of Puget Sound, Inc., 148 Wn.2d 876, 881 , 64 P.3d 10 (2003). … However, the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents instead of only the immediately preceding one. Judson v.

Morton v. McFall

128 Wash. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 5, 2005

Rasch is not qualified to testify as to the standard of care for either a pulmonologist (Dr. Joseph) or a surgeon (Dr. … Rasch is qualified to testify by virtue of her experience and specialty. Dr.

State v. T.E.C.

122 Wash. App. 9 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 24, 2004

conclusion that a disposition within the standard range would constitute a manifest injustice, and (3) the sentence is neither clearly too lenient nor clearly too excessive. … In this case, a qualified treatment program was unavailable. Thus, albeit through no fault of his own, T.C. clearly was unable to “make satisfactory progress in treatment” as required under RCW 13.40-.160(3)(b)(ix).

State v. Platz

33 Wash. App. 345 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 8, 1982

Moreover, even assuming Platz established prejudice, the reason for the delay here—to determine through a special inquiry proceeding whether a key witness would be granted immunity—justified delay. … The evidence is relevant under ER 401. 3 It is clearly probative of whether Platz could have inflicted the victim's stab wounds. Secondly, the evidence is admissible under ER 404(b).

Briedablik, Big Valley, Lofall, Edgewater, Surfrest, North End Community Ass'n v. Kitsap County

33 Wash. App. 108 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 26, 1982

At issue is whether RCW 36.01.050, establishing venue for suits by or against a county, is subject to the general change of venue statute, RCW 4.12.030. … The immunity is absolute, and, when consent is given, it may be qualified or conditional and may specify a particular court in which the permitted actions may be maintained. . . .

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.

City Of Fife v. Russell P. Hicks

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. App. at 294. … Under these precedents, the materials qualify as specific investigative records. B.

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

Ripley v. Grays Harbor County

27 P.3d 1197 · 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

Davis v. State

109 Wash. App. 734 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2002

First, even though the facts alleged would, if proved, constitute a recent overt act, the sexual allegations were not established at the violation hearing. … Second, nothing was established at that hearing by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Davis

182 Wash. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 31, 2014

The affidavit stated, “In this photo you can clearly *629 see the green houses to the left of the house. The larger of the two green houses was half opened when the initial flight was done. … Then, for the legal component, we apply de novo review to determine whether the qualifying information as a whole amounts to *631 probable cause. Id.

Fernando v. Nieswandt

87 Wash. App. 103 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 1997

He also testified that guardians ad litem are generally not qualified to make recommendations for the care of a child because they have no scientific training. … The statute which permits the court to appoint a guardian ad litem establishes the qualifications as well.