Case law

Sherman v. State

905 P.2d 355 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1995

Given that the memorandum clearly *371 articulated that AAG Milam was acting as counsel for the University, even if Dr. … To establish a violation of the Act, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that: (1) he or she is a "handicapped individual" under the Act; (2) he or she is "otherwise qualified" for the position sought; (3) he or

State v. Clapp

67 Wash. App. 263 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 26, 1992

Commentators have noted that a duplicate may qualify as an original, but a written transcript does not qualify as a duplicate of an electronic recording. See 5B K Tegland, Wash. Prac., Evidence § 482 (3d ed. 1989). … In addition, "[c]rimes against different victims clearly seem to satisfy Johnson's 'independent purpose or effect' test." State v. Hudlow, 36 Wn. App. 630, 633 , 676 P.2d 553 (1984).

Van Hoven v. Pre-Employee.com, Inc.

156 Wash. App. 879 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 2010

CR 56(c). ¶14 In order to prove a claim for defamation, four elements must be established: (1) falsity, (2) an unprivileged communication, (3) fault, and (4) damages. Mark v. … Van Hoven fails to establish damages. ¶17 Mr. Van Hoven also asserts that Ms.

Tofte v. City of Longview

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 23, 2024

immunity protects “government officials . . . from liability for 10 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … immunity.”).

State v. Smith

117 Wash. 2d 263 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1991

where the statute in question does not directly implicate physical liberty. [38] [11] Another difficulty with the juvenile defendant's attempt to trigger strict or even heightened scrutiny is the fact that Washington cases clearly … In Freeland , the court reached the issue it did not address in Clark , that is, whether a prosecutor's use of the two charging procedures "adheres to sufficiently consistent standards" in order to establish probable cause

State v. Finnegan

6 Wash. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 29, 1972

established Duncan’s competency. … Rev. 228 (1964), the prosecutor’s constitutional duty to reveal evidence material to either the guilt or punishment of a defendant was firmly established; however, no formula for the implementation of this duty was established

Hardt v. Brink

192 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 27, 1961

Clearly, the ordinary insurance solicitor only assumes those duties normally found in any agency relationship. … It is particularly significant that plaintiff’s expert witness, a man well qualified in the field of fire and casualty insurance, and possessing knowledge as to the standard practice of qualified insurance specialists in

Concerned Friends Of Ferry County & Futurewise v. Ferry County

191 Wash. App. 803 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 15, 2015

Ordinance No. 2013-05, in turn, establishes the detailed process for the identification and designation of ARL. … Parcels consisting of “Class IV” soils, including soils that qualify as Class III only if irrigated, qualify for two points if the parcels have irrigation.

Peters v. Vinatieri

102 Wash. App. 641 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 22, 2000

The road on which the agents drove is “clearly a private road and it is maintained entirely by myself.” … Because we conclude that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, we need not consider defendant Vinatieri’s qualified immunity defense. See Benjamin v.

Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365

District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 15, 2024

Thus, Mr. 9 Small is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to his decision to place 10 Plaintiff on administrative leave. 11 Similarly, it was not clearly established … Additionally, the 20 individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly 21 established under the facts of this case that transferring Plaintiff to a teaching 22 position could violate

United States v. Hoffman

116 P.3d 999 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2005

summary judgment that the CPA's provisions violate the United States Constitution's supremacy clause (article VI, clause 2) and commerce clause (article I, section 8, clause 3), and extend beyond any waiver of sovereign immunity … As the phrase "and other discarded material" suggests, every material that qualifies as "solid waste" must be in some way "discarded."

Lakehaven Water & Sewer Dist. v. City of Federal Way

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2020

The governmental/proprietary distinction is integral to the governmental immunity doctrine and is firmly established in this court’s jurisprudence. … This rule is strongly established in our cases as a basic principle of government.

Michael Michelbrink, Jr. v. Washington State Patrol

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 23, 2014

Unlike Tegard' s declaration, however, we do not interpret WSP' s training materials as establishing certain injury for purposes of defeating summary judgment here. 15 Last year the Montana Supreme court addressed a somewhat … On the contrary, RCW 51. 24. 020 expressly and clearly provides, " If injury results to a worker from the deliberate intention of his or her employer to produce such injury, the worker . . 18

Woodson v. State

95 Wash. 2d 257 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1980

That case clearly demonstrated the court's understanding that osteopathy included neither the practice of surgery nor the prescribing or administering of drugs. … On the other hand, when it declares accredited schools shall be those that may thereafter be established by some private authority, it is clearly an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

Campbell v. City of Bellevue

85 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1975

We cannot agree with the City that ordinance No. 163 (§ 16.32.120) affords immunity under the circumstances of this case. … in which the accident occurred, but also in all other like establishments.”

Sloan v. United States Department of Agriculture

335 F. Supp. 816 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 6, 1971

Plaintiffs allege that, although they qualify for food stamps, their incomes are so low that' they cannot afford them. 1 2 This matter came before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but because … Where, as here, the facts clearly indicate that the request concerns an area that qualifies for dual operation by virtue of its severely depressed economy, the Secretary has the duty to approve that request.

McDermott v. State

197 Wash. 79 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1938

“Rogues’ gallery system of criminal identifica *81 tion,” and therefore constitutes a pernicious abrogation of indefeasible rights, privileges, and immunities of appellant, his lessee barbers, and all other barbers similarly … Every reasonable presumption must be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of this statute, and the burden rests upon appellant to establish clearly its invalidity. State v.

Whatcom County v. Brisbane

125 Wash. 2d 345 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1994

The ordinance is 145 pages long and clearly establishes new guidelines for evaluating and regulating proposed development in and around critical areas in Whatcom County. … While highly beneficial, the planned development of critical environmental areas does not qualify as emergency legislation.

Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State

67 Wash. 2d 246 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1965

in tort goes far beyond the original invention and elaboration of the immunity doctrine. … Establishing guidelines for its application, however, is another matter, particularly in the area involving executive or administrative discretion. (Italics mine.)

TS v. Boy Scouts of America

157 Wash. 2d 416 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2006

On the other hand, the majority's recognition of a First Amendment qualified privilege against discovery requires much more judicial footwork: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting … Further, we declared over 25 years ago that article I, section 7 "clearly recognizes an individual's right to privacy with no express limitations." State v.