Case law

Good v. West Seattle General Hospital Corp.

53 Wash. 2d 617 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1959

We agree with the trial court that expert testimony was not necessary to establish the negligence, if any, of the defendant. … questions during the examination of witnesses, and more particularly the cross-examination, the trial court has considerable latitude, and its rulings will not be held to be reversible error unless it appears that they are clearly

State Ex Rel. Helm v. Kramer

82 Wash. 2d 307 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1973

Schedule of Annual Salaries Executive Officials The procedure followed by the legislature for the ultimate adoption of this section was in conformity with the direction contained in RCW 43.03.028, which provides for the establishment … the words “support of the state government and its existing institutions” but only qualifies the words “preservation of the public peace, health or safety.”

Wilson v. Board of Governors

90 Wash. 2d 649 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1978

We have examined these cases, as well as others petitioner relies upon, and conclude they are clearly distinguishable. … We also reject the petitioner's argument that he must be granted a hearing to establish that Western is as sound a law school as one which is in fact ABA approved.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Spokane Concrete Products, Inc.

534 F. Supp. 518 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 12, 1982

Defendant argues it has met its burden because the applicant selected was assertedly better qualified than Ms. … It is concluded, however, that defendant did utilize subjective criteria, and in this instance, has not met its burden of showing clearly and convincingly that Ms. Sellers-McKenna would not have been favored over Mr.

State v. Hutton

7 Wash. App. 726 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 2, 1972

Clearly, in this case, Dr. Bremner, although qualified, was not asked to express any opinion as *730 to the identity of the substance. Such failure invites a motion to strike. State v. … The fact that someone had told her the substance was speed does not in any manner qualify her to testify that it was speed.

Roberts v. Dudley

140 Wash. 2d 58 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 17, 2000

Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy. … Rather, we recognize the long-established tort of wrongful discharge may be established when the discharge is wrongfully accomplished on account of gender.

State Of Washington v. Thomas Joseph Feely

192 Wash. App. 751 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 22, 2016

Certainly he was endangering Trooper Lipton, and perhaps during a part of that, he was endangering Officer Pike, because Officer Pike was behind *760 Lipton and suddenly found a tire coming his way, but those would, not qualify … But Feely does not establish he is entitled to relief on appeal.

Shea v. Spokane Washington

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 30, 2025

Defenses: 25 Defendants pose two potential shields from liability, qualified immunity and 26 legislative immunity. … The Court 8|| defers ruling on the immunity defenses until further factual inquiry occurs. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1.

McDevitt v. Harborview Medical Center

179 Wash. 2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2013

Clearly, as recent legislative action amply shows, it is not what our legislature intended either. … The general provision establishing the preclaim notice requirement, former RCW 4.92.100 (2009), was amended to exclude health care injuries, providing more equal treatment for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

Shaw v. Vannice

96 Wash. 2d 532 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1981

He was duly elected prior to the Basic Act and is a qualified district court judge under RCW 3.34.060(2)(b). … In Young , the district court judge, who was in a district having a population of less than 10,000, qualified for his position by passing a qualifying examination pursuant to RCW 3.34.060(2)(c).

Mason v. King County

142 P.3d 637 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2006

A court may grant relief on a land use decision only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the following standards is met: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged … KCC 19A.28.020(C)(2) prohibits approval of a BLA that would "[r]esult in a lot that does not qualify as a building site pursuant to [KCC Title 19A]."

Kittitas County v. Allphin

Washington Supreme Court · May 17, 2018

As a result, they qualify as work product under Civil Rule (CR)26(b)(4). A. … Decisions to this effect confuse the work-product immunity with the attorney-client privilege....

Sittner v. City of Seattle

62 Wash. 2d 834 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 29, 1963

An ordinance to be void for unreasonableness must be plainly and clearly unreasonable. Seattle v. Hurst, 50 Wash. 424 , 97 Pac. 454 (1908). … The plaintiffs have therefore failed to establish that the control exercised by the ordinance over their burning activities is discriminatory and in contravention of Art. 1, § 12 of the state constitution and the fourteenth

Rohda v. Boen

45 Wash. 2d 553 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1954

The evidence does not clearly preponderate against the above finding. … Having determined that the evidence does not clearly preponderate against any of the challenged findings, they become the established facts of this case; and, as we find no merit in appellants’ assignments of error, the judgment

Northshore School District No. 417 v. Kinnear

84 Wash. 2d 685 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1974

Some districts can more easily afford to incur the nonreimbursable portion of expense such as transportation, and hence can more easily qualify for larger amounts of reimbursement. … Const, art. 1, § 12: "Special Privileges and Immunities Prohibited.

J-U-B Engineers, Inc. v. Routsen

69 Wash. App. 148 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 23, 1993

This court cannot grant a judgment, even by default, when it clearly has no merit. (Citations omitted.) For all practical purposes, the court sua sponte raised a defense for Dr. … Routson, having suffered only a default at this point, can move to set aside the order of default pursuant to CR 55(c)(1) for the purpose of presenting a defense of qualified privilege.

Mills v. Monlux

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2025

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s claims are precluded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, and 2 there was no violation of a clearly established constitutional right … Mills has made no showing that any of Ms. 10 Monlux’s affirmative defenses “cannot succeed under any circumstances” as required to 11 establish legal insufficiency.

State v. Kennedy

19 Wash. 2d 152 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1943

It further clearly appears that the payee was either a fictitious person or his signature was forged by the appellant. … Anderson was not qualified as an expert on handwriting and that his testimony was not based upon an established standard of comparison, as required under the authority of State v. McGuff, 104 Wash. 501 , 177 Pac. 316 .

Patrice v. Murphy

966 P.2d 1271 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1998

RCW 2.42.120 has been interpreted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as establishing a private cause of action for damages if the statute's requirements are not complied with. Duffy v. … II, § 19 ... seems clearly to have been disregarded...." Potter, 138 Wash. at 576 , 245 P. 11 (emphasis added).

STATE ON BEHALF OF SIGLER v. Sigler

85 Wash. App. 329 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 1997

A *334 statute is presumed constitutional; thus, the party challenging it bears the burden of establishing the constitutional violation. Campos, 75 Wn. App. at 384 . … The Supreme Court has clearly indicated that laws which do not place direct restrictions on an individual’s ability to exercise a right do not constitute a direct and substantial interference. See Bowen v.