Case law

K.P. McNamara Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Ecology

173 Wash. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 23, 2013

Accordingly, because KP McNamara fails to establish that our Supreme Court’s holding in Hickle bears on the present case, we hold that his contention is without merit. … 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. ¶92 In support of its contention that it was

State v. Hamilton

24 Wash. App. 927 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1979

The State put on little testimony to contradict that of the defense, although it did establish that Mr. … Is it to be based on a percentage of the sign's surface area clearly devoted to advertising? If, so, what percentage will qualify?

State v. Monson

53 Wash. App. 854 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 17, 1989

Clearly, "hearsay contents" (italicized above) refers to the victim's narrative account, contained in the records, and not to the records themselves. … Indeed, a close reading of White discloses it did not purport to establish this "rule”.

State v. Bourgeois

72 Wash. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 24, 1994

Clearly, the statute contemplates that juvenile offenders may be confined for terms extending up to the age of 21. … Under the statutory definition, loss of a foot, for example, would qualify as great bodily injury.

In Re Detention of Jones

149 Wash. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2009

to interpreting the "best interests" determination, the Bergen court also held that the "adequate community safety" determination involves examining the residence identified in an LRA: "[A]dequate community safety" ... clearly … But RCW 71.09.350(3) provides an exception for an expert who is not providing treatment: Nothing in this section prohibits a qualified expert from examining or evaluating a sexually violent predator who has been conditionally

State v. Wallace

86 Wash. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 27, 1997

Clearly, protecting prisoner health is not the sole *556 or even the main purpose of the statute. … Taken to its limit, Wallace’s argument would allow first degree murderers with health problems to qualify for home detention.

Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. Spokane County

139 Wash. App. 450 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 28, 2007

The issue is whether the superior court correctly determined that the city of Spokane (City) had a specific interest in a downtown parking garage so as to qualify the garage for tax exemption. … See RCW 35.21.755 (Public Development Authority receives same immunity as city creating it); Clallam County v. United States, 263 U.S. 341, 345 , 44 S. Ct. 121 , 68 L.

State v. Thompson

35 Wash. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 11, 1983

Chervenell, 99 Wn.2d 309 , 662 P.2d 836 (1983), the Supreme Court held that in order to prove the validity of a guilty plea for use in subsequent proceedings, *771 the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the … The crime of escape in the first degree is clearly distinguishable in its nature and purpose from habitual criminal proceedings.

Rhodes v. URM Stores, Inc.

95 Wash. App. 794 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 1, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of handi *799 cap discrimination, Mr. Rhodes must prove (1) he is handicapped, (2) he is qualified for his position, and (3) he was replaced by a person who is not handicapped. Lords v. … Rhodes had established that URM discriminated against him because of his uncontrolled drug abuse, he still fails to establish a viable claim of handicap discrimination.

Jaramillo v. Morris

50 Wash. App. 822 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 22, 1988

Morris' podiatry license, as established in RCW 18.22.010(1). It appears from the record the type of surgery performed by Dr. … Here, that clearly occurred, given the conflict between the trial court's ruling and that of the WSPB after its contested ruling.

Freedom Foundation v. Department of Transportation

168 Wash. App. 278 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 10, 2012

There, our Supreme Court addressed another federal regulation addressing different privacy protections, 12 but Ameriquest establishes the rule that federal regulations with their enabling statutes qualify as “other statute … “medical information” only, and not qualifying “test results.” 49 U.S.C. § 5331 (d)(7); see Am.

Apartment Management Consultants Llc, V. State Dept. Of Revenue

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 3, 2026

AMC also argued that Rule 111 applied to its circumstances because the PMAs established that AMC was an agent of the Owners. … AMC’s employee handbook clearly demonstrates that AMC considers itself as the employer of onsite employees.

In Re the Estate of Long

82 Wash. App. 609 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 1996

In Newman, Leo Newman’s will established a trust for his wife. Newman, 40 Cal. Rptr. at 786. … If Thomas had intended an automatic, de jure distribution, he need not have qualified "distribution” with the adjective "complete distribution.”

B & R Sales, Inc. v. Dept. Of L & I

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 10, 2015

as workers under the former RCW 51. 08. 180 ( 1991) but did qualify as workers under the version of RCW 51. 08. 180 effective June 12, 2008. … The evidence established that the couple was retained to do the work because they owned a donkey engine, and that they could not have performed the contract without the donkey engine. Id.

Better Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Caicos Corp.

73 P.3d 424 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 29, 2003

. *426 Here, BFS contracted individually with qualified union cement masons (laborers) to perform the work subcontracted by MK. … BFS clearly wished to have no on-site function with respect to the project's construction.

Larry L. & Gloria Roemmich, Appellants/cross-resps. V. 3m Company, Respondents/cross-apps.

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 9, 2022

We presume prejudice if a jury instruction clearly misstates the law. Id. 1. … “The ‘but-for’ test requires a plaintiff to establish that the act complained of probably caused the subsequent disability.” Id.

State v. J.V.

132 Wash. App. 533 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 24, 2006

But the juvenile court concluded that failure to qualify for the mitigating factor constituted the aggravating factor of recent criminal history under RCW 13.40.150(3)(h)(v) (recent criminal history). 23 This was incorrect … J.V. argues that the 30 to 40 week sentence is clearly excessive.

Ventures Northwest Ltd. v. State

914 P.2d 1180 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 1996

238 (1990). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 A cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege that (1) defendant acted under color of state law; and (2) defendant's conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities … Clearly, the Corps had a basis to deny the permit even before it received the State's December 15, 1988 letter.

State v. Jacobson

74 Wash. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 27, 1994

The Legislature qualified when the definition would not apply, stating: "In construing the provisions of this act, save when otherwise plainly declared or clearly apparent from the context, the following rules shall be observed … In not applying the definition, the Klinkenberg court relied solely on the "clearly apparent from the context” part of that qualifier. Klinkenberg , at 471.

State v. Cissne

72 Wash. App. 677 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 25, 1994

Borchardt, 224 Neb. 47 , 395 N.W.2d 551 (1986) (test results cannot be characterized as "scientific" or "technical evidence" and admissible until it is established that these results demonstrate what they are supposed to … When asked how persons would respond to an HGN test if they had not consumed alcohol, the officer answered: "They are able to accurately and clearly follow any object from one side to the other as the object is moved."