Case law

State Of Washington, V. Lendsay Leshly Meza

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 27, 2022

At the jury panel stage, “jury selection must be done in a fair way that does not exclude qualified jurors on inappropriate grounds.” State v. … This case does not establish a rigid requirement. In State v.

In re the Welfare of A.T.

109 Wash. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 21, 2001

At the time dependency was entered, M.C. had not established paternity. … M.C.’s 1987 rape conviction clearly did not result in the birth of A.T.

Wright v. Mead School District No. 354

87 Wash. App. 624 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 22, 1997

An appellate court reviews factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, and issues of law de novo. Id. at 109 . … The court further stated that to find the conduct was not grounds for dismissal would operate to immunize an individual who managed to hide his past conduct prior to hiring. Id.

Sarah Ellen Keenan & David E. Keenan v. City of Spokane Valley

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 20, 2024

Thus, the mere fact of “incidental recreational use of land” is insufficient to qualify for recreational use immunity. Id. … The order is affirmed as to the affirmative defense of recreational immunity. The order is reversed as to whether the Keenans can establish an exception to immunity based on a latent defect.

State v. Alkire

100 P.3d 837 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 15, 2004

Once those facts were established, the statutes gave the court discretion to impose a higher penalty. The court merely fixed the punishment within the authorized range. … Ortega, 120 Wash.App. 165, 169 , 84 P.3d 935 (2004) (relevant qualifying facts of prior conviction were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus could not be used to enhance the penalty for a subsequent conviction

MacSuga v. County of Spokane

97 Wash. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 14, 1999

MacSuga assigns error to the jury instruction on reasonable accommodation and the burden of proof to establish FMLA eligibility. DISCUSSION We review jury instructions de novo. Hue v. … An accommodation is reasonable only if its cost is not clearly disproportionate. Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1112 (1998).

Kohn v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

69 Wash. App. 709 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 1993

The record clearly indicates that Georgia-Pacific informed plaintiff of four jobs for which she was "qualified". … As stated in Stewart , [t]he court reasoned that established personnel policies may, in certain circumstances, create legitimate employee expectations that the policies will be binding.

Topline Equipment, Inc. v. Stan Witty Land, Inc.

31 Wash. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 15, 1982

RCW 19.52.010 clearly limits interest charges to 6 percent per annum in the absence of a written agreement specifying a different rate. … This evidence clearly warranted the jury's conclusion that there was a valid business relationship between the parties.

In Re The Dependency Of: N.B.G.

551 P.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2024

by stipulation if “the proposed guardian is qualified, appropriate, and capable of performing the duties of a guardian under RCW 13.36.050.” … In the order for A.R.G., finding of fact 2.16 references N.B.G., when it clearly meant to reference A.R.G.

Mader v. Health Care Auth.

37 P.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 14, 2002

benefits under the terms established by the Legislature. … But the text of the HCA's decision clearly indicates otherwise.

State v. Wilbur-Bobb

141 P.3d 665 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2006

Along with testimony by the officer and toxicologist establishing the chain of custody, this was sufficient to make a prima facie case. … The black and white copy does not clearly show the words "sodium fluoride". But Exhibit 21, the actual color photograph examined by the trial judge, does clearly contain those words.

State v. Burke

431 P.3d 1109 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 27, 2018

Ex. 19B. ¶ 22 The consent form then described several aspects of a forensic evaluation, including that "[m]edications may be recommended including immunizations, anti-nausea medications, emergency contraception and medications … Unfortunately, the Court did not define what qualifies as a testimonial statement.

State v. Wilbur-Bobb

134 Wash. App. 627 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2006

Along with testimony by the officer and toxicologist establishing the chain of custody, this was sufficient to make a prima facie case. … The black and white copy does not clearly show the words “sodium fluoride.” But exhibit 21, the actual color photograph examined by the trial judge, does clearly contain those words.

In Re Young

86 P.3d 810 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 7, 2004

Rather, he presumes Young was an SVP in 1991 and clearly states in his report that Young no longer meets that definition because of his advanced age. … Barbaree's opinion is not enough to establish probable cause.

Mader v. Health Care Authority

109 Wash. App. 904 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 14, 2002

Mader and Knudsen did not ask that the HCA rule on their eligibility during prior summers, and the HCA clearly did not do so. … But the text of the HCA’s decision clearly indicates otherwise.

Lesa Samuels v. City Of Tacoma

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 1, 2019

, and thus, the City is not entitled to qualified immunity and the superior court erred. … Under RCW 18.71.210, “Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, not simply from liability.” Marthaller, 94 Wn.

Northstar Case Management Obo Raymond Bell, V. State Of Wa Dshs

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 22, 2026

App. 2d at 142 (the word “may” in RCW 71.05.050(3) did not create a mandatory duty requiring health care providers to detain patients suspected of qualifying for an involuntary commitment and, therefore, the statute did … The court reasoned that even though the relevant statute provided immunity from liability for people who cooperated in good faith with an investigation arising from a report, “ ‘[this] grant of immunity clearly implies

State v. Alkire

124 Wash. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 15, 2004

Once those facts were established, the statutes gave the court discretion to impose a higher penalty. The court merely fixed the punishment within the authorized range. … App. 165, 169 , 84 P.3d 935 (2004) (relevant qualifying facts of prior conviction were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and thus could not be used to enhance the penalty for a subsequent conviction under Apprendi

McKendry v. McKendry

2 Wash. App. 882 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 1970

The finding of fact supporting the award of alimony did not establish that defendant was unable to support himself. … However, it is doubtful that such a finding established defendant’s need for alimony at the time of the divorce.

In Re The Marriage Of Andrew J. Aiken v. Tina M. Aiken

194 Wash. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 23, 2016

In Mull, the partnership distributions are clearly compensation. … Further, any suggestion that Andrew's stock purchases function as a retirement vehicle is not established in this record.