Case law

Adamski v. Tacoma General Hospital

20 Wash. App. 98 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 16, 1978

It appears that this evidence is sufficient to establish, prima facie, that defendant West was an agent of defendant hospital. … Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125 , 105 N.E. 92 (1914), New York adhered to the doctrine of "charitable immunity" for hospitals.

State of Washington v. Paul Desmond Browne

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 12, 2014

Browne did not have the prescribing doctor available as a witness to establish that Mr. DeHart- Browne was a qualifying patient. Mr. … Here, there clearly was no due process violation in destroying, by court order, the marijuana plants. The fact that Mr.

State ex rel. Tonasket v. Cottrell

92 Wash. 2d 606 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1979

This court promulgated JCrR 8.01 establishing the procedures for filing affidavits of prejudice and indicating those circumstances where such procedures are available. (a) Disqualification. … Our narrow reading of the uncodified section is buttressed by the fact that, where the legislature has intended to deny all rights to a change of venue, it has clearly done so.

Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

151 Wash. App. 909 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 25, 2009

Home Depot contracted with a financing company to establish the private label credit card. … If it is a tax preference, we must read any statute establishing the preference no more broadly then necessary to fulfill its legislative purpose.

In Re Brett

16 P.3d 601 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2001

However, neither Dane nor Foister moved for the appointment of a qualified expert. Whatever testimony Dr. … Dane clearly suffers from bipolar disorder. In a note to counsel, Mr. Keyser diagnoses Mr. Dane, "at the very least, Bipolar II and possibly Bipolar I."

Rijal v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 22, 2011

Abilities in the “sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics” qualify. 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (b)(l)(A)(i). … The court can overlook errors only when they “clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of the decision reached.” Id. at 1119 (quoting Gifford Pinchot Task Force v.

State v. Alexus

91 Wash. 2d 492 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1979

There it was announced that "unavailability as established under [subsection (f)] can be shown only if the prosecution demonstrates good faith and diligent efforts to obtain the availability of the defendant." … Within 17 days of the filing of the information and the issuance of the warrant for Alexus, he could have been found at the Clark County jail, a fact clearly indicated on the court's warrant information form.

Williams v. Sinclair

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 17, 2020

immunity. … Id. at 5–14. 21 Defendants failed to address Williams’s state constitutional claim or the rule that 22 qualified immunity does not apply to requests for injunctive relief.

Hansel v. Ford Motor Co.

3 Wash. App. 151 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 1970

The statute is clearly concerned *156 with the driver of a motor vehicle, whether he be the owner or just an operator. Appellants were unable to cite any authority directly in point. … But none of the cases go so far as to require that malpractice be established exclusively by the testimony of doctors.

Fell v. Spokane Transit Authority

128 Wash. 2d 618 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1996

I, § 12 (privileges and immunities, and equal protection). The aim and purpose of the special privileges and immunities provision of Art. … STA is clearly considered a place of public accommodation as defined by RCW 49.60.040.” Br. of Resp’t at 9. We disagree. The statute speaks to places and facilities.

Hodge

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 5, 2026

City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2007) 9 (officers had probable cause to arrest a plaintiff for trespassing at a mall after being 10 banned by the owner, granting them qualified immunity); Brown v. … immunity as a matter of law.

State v. Mullins

128 Wash. App. 633 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2005

qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such charges by proof of his or her compliance with the requirements provided in this chapter. ¶12 In order … The use of the term “is” clearly indicates that the person must be presently responsible for those duties.

State v. Contreras

57 Wash. App. 471 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 9, 1990

Under those circumstances, the reference to defendant's failure to call witnesses was clearly improper. Similarly, State v. Fowler 3 is distinguishable. … Contreras relies on ER 602, 11 which establishes a foundation requirement.

HomeStreet, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE

162 P.3d 458 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 24, 2007

established that the income in question was withheld from and related to the borrower's interest payments. … And, in servicing retained sales, HomeStreet retains only the right to provide loan servicing for the purchaser of the loan and to be compensated for those services. [21] Although HomeStreet has clearly established that servicing

City of Seattle v. Parker

2 Wash. App. 331 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 1970

dissenting opinion in Shelton notes that the statute there under consideration provided that a public record was to be kept of all liquor licenses, and “the question of whether a particular person has or has not a license is clearly … For example, the official records could establish the fact. We agree. Neither precedent nor the temper of the times warrants our abandoning the reasoning in Shelton.

Fahey v. Shafer

98 Wash. 517 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1917

The trial court committed no error in holding that, on the established facts, the occasion of the communications and the *524 relation of the parties to the subject-matter was such as to invoke the rule of qualified privilege … Respondents’ statements were clearly argumentative rather than direct and unqualified charges of false advertising. Taken as a whole, they were capable of no other construction.

Spencer v. City of Spokane

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 18, 2019

In their motion, Defendants argue that DPA Evans has 8 absolute immunity and, in the alternative, qualified immunity. … Second, the court must determine whether the identified constitutional right 7 was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

State v. Lowenthal

183 Wash. 14 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1935

In such cases, the jury, in the first instance, and the trial court, in the second, are peculiarly well qualified to determine the degree of credence to be given to the testimony. … The situation here presented is nowise analogous to one in which it clearly appears, either by the admission of such witness or overwhelming proof, that the chief witness for the prosecution had, after the trial, repudiated

Francisco Guillen v. Benjamin Pearson

195 Wash. App. 464 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 16, 2016

If there is a comma before the qualifying phrase, the last antecedent rule does not apply and the qualifying phrase modifies all the antecedent terms. Id. … Instead, the court stated that Keystone, being a licensed contractor in control of a project, clearly met the definition of construction agent.

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co. v. Department of Revenue

159 Wash. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 21, 2010

] fuel.” *109 Bunker fuel is a qualifying fuel. … The amendment added language to the statute clearly limiting its applicability to wholesalers and retailers of qualifying fuel. RCW 82.04.433.