Case law

In Re Parentage of MS

115 P.3d 405 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2005

In February 2003, *407 Hampson filed a petition 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.

White v. Kent Medical Center, Inc.

61 Wash. App. 163 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 6, 1991

In sum, it is incumbent upon the moving party to determine what issues are susceptible to resolution by summary judgment, and to clearly state in its opening papers those issues upon which summary judgment is sought. 1 If … Pierson, 411 N.W.2d 92, 96 (N.D. 1987); see also ER 702 (witness qualifies as expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education).

State of Washington v. Gustavo Duarte Mares

190 Wash. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 24, 2015

Mares agreement to sexual intercourse be made "at the time of the act of sexual intercourse"­ then we should ascribe the same temporal qualifier to the statute's requirement that lack of consent be clearly expressed. … App. 599,608-9,36 P.3d 1103 (2001), in which the court held that a victim's helplessness or incapacitation can be established by debilitating intoxication.

Stiefel v. City of Kent

132 Wash. App. 523 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 24, 2006

For this exception to apply, however, “the regulation establishing a *532 duty must intend to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons, and this intent must be clearly expressed within the provision … Because these regulatory provisions are clearly aimed at the public at large, the legislative intent exception does not apply. See Baerlein v.

State v. Evans

164 Wash. App. 629 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 1, 2011

He contends that a corporation does not qualify as a “person” under the identity theft statute, RCW 9.35.020. … The prohibited conduct is clearly identified and easily understood.

Dodge City Saloon v. State Liquor Control

166 Wash. App. 828 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 28, 2012

The fulcrum point upon which the [Liquor] Board's key argument rests is that card itself stated clearly when [C.M.] would turn 18, which also clearly meant that at the time he was not 21 either. … A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.

Franklin v. Johnston

161 Wash. App. 803 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 16, 2011

parents from qualifying as de facto *814 parents. … J. had “clearly developed a primary attachment to [Franklin] as his parent.” CP at 949. ¶43 Nevertheless, Johnston contends that by virtue of the State’s taking legal custody of A.F.

Stan Schiff, M.d., Ph.d., Resp/cross-pet V. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Et Ano, Pet/cross-resp

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 28, 2022

In Folweiler, we clearly held that the precise practice in which Liberty Mutual is engaged violates the CPA. … Moreover, decisional authority does not support Liberty Mutual’s contention that the regulatory approval of an insurance policy is sufficient to establish immunity from a CPA claim.

COBRA ROOFING SERVICE, INC. v. Department of Labor & Industries

97 P.3d 17 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2004

A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. … "A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought." RCW 4.84.350(1).

Noble v. Safe Harbor Family Preservation Trust

141 Wash. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 9, 2007

App. at 873 . ¶12 Moreover, that Safe Harbor did not join Tillicum does not immunize it from responsibility for Tillicum’s attorney fees under RCW 8.24.030. … Clearly, the full responsibility for the costs of litigating the claimed alternative feasible access rests with Safe Harbor and the Stokeses. II.

State v. Ragan

22 Wash. App. 591 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 6, 1979

Details are not admissible unless they are qualified under the res gestae (excited utterance) exception to the hearsay rule. State v. King, supra. See also State v. Bloomstrom, 12 Wn. … The reason for admitting it in the case in chief in sex crimes is clearly set forth in, 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1135, at 298-300 (rev. ed. J.

Stevens County v. Futurewise

146 Wash. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2008

It was only after that meeting that the county added a subsection to SCC 13.10.034(3) that qualified the classification of critical habitat: C. … The county also fails to establish identity in the subject matter.

State v. Brown

100 Wash. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 27, 2000

We hold that the court properly denied Brown’s witness immunity request as well as his motion to sever the felony murder count. … In other words, all crimes that did not arise from a single act or omission were clearly separate and distinct.

Activate v. Washington State Dept. of Rev.

209 P.3d 524 · 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 FilmWorks, 106 Wash.App. at 459 , 24 P.3d 460 . … Finally, it is 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.

State v. Woods

3 Wash. App. 691 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 30, 1970

The officer testified that Woods was promptly advised of his constitutional immunity from self-incrimination and that Woods readily signed a form entitled “Constitutional Rights” in which he acknowledged that he had been … In any event, Woods argues that a 101.20W hearing must in all cases qualify evidence of custodial statements.

Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Board

168 Wash. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 15, 2012

The fulcrum point upon which the [Liquor] Board’s key argument rests is that card itself stated clearly when [C.M.] would turn 18, which also clearly meant that at the time he was not 21 either. … A qualified party shall be considered to *405 have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.

Singleton v. Naegeli Reporting Corp.

175 P.3d 594 · 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

City of Seattle v. Shaver

23 Wash. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 25, 1979

Tarlowski, supra is clearly distinguishable. In that case the defendant was denied the presence and assistance of his accountant — during an investigative interview with IRS agents. … Pursuant to RCW 2.48.170, and the Admission to Practice Rules promulgated by the Washington Supreme Court, the following requirement has been established: No person shall appear as attorney or counsel in any of the courts

Chemithon Corp. v. Agency

19 Wash. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 10, 1978

Other sections of regulation 1 establish the substantive standards based on chemical or physical composition of the emissions. … Clearly Erroneous We first consider whether or not this matter should be reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" test. In Ancheta v.

Cobra Roofing Service, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries

122 Wash. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2004

A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. … “A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.” RCW 4.84.350(1).