Case law

State v. Whitman County District Court

105 Wash. 2d 278 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1986

These cases clearly establish the proposition that the accused has a right under the implied consent statute to be afforded the opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision whether to submit to an evidentiary breath … He was also advised that he had a right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his choosing.

Richard Fortin, V. Callum Herdson

530 P.3d 220 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 30, 2023

The trial court determined that Fortin was not entitled to immunity under the business judgment rule, and that Herdson was entitled to relief because he had “established a probable right in … The record establishes that no party brought a motion seeking permission from this court.

Washington Imaging Services, LLC v. Department of Revenue

171 Wash. 2d 548 · Washington Supreme Court · May 19, 2011

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Revenue (the Department), ruling that the amounts paid to Overlake do not qualify for “pass-through” treatment. … The Court of Appeals said that the findings were “clearly supported by the stipulated facts.” Id. at 45 .

State v. Harris

6 P.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2000

Finally, it is well established that the court is not bound by the plea agreement. See RCW 9.94A.090(2); Sledge, 133 Wash.2d at 839 n. 6, 947 P.2d 1199 . 2. … Of course, the Government may — and quite readily can — `agree' through its agents that only certain of its agents are to be obligated in particular respects, or that the Government's obligation is otherwise qualified."

DeRyan v. Glover

District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 18, 2023

However, if a defendant’s conduct does not violate a clearly 9 established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, 10 the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. … Thus, Defendants appear to be entitled to qualified immunity. 14 a.

City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc.

152 Wash. 2d 343 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 9, 2004

[Use of such] places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. Hague, 307 U.S. at 515 . … Conclusion Washington follows federal forum analysis and Vincent has established that utility poles are not a traditional public forum.

In re the Welfare of L.N.B.-L.

157 Wash. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2010

and Health Services (Department) *223 failed to establish several elements of RCW 13.34.180(1) 3 and ICWA. … One case clearly does not support KL’s assertion, stating, “[W]e do not hold that an expert ICWÁ witness qualified under subpart three of the Guidelines must be fluent in the cultural standards of a particular Indian tribe

Engstrom v. City of Seattle

92 Wash. 568 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1916

The trial court was of the opinion that this section of the city charter was not intended to establish a pension system for civil service employees whenever discharging their duties; that the provision was merely compensatory … public policy, and shocking to the sense of justice, to hold that the proceeds of insurance paid for by the injured person for his own benefit or that of his widow and children should inure to the benefit *572 of, and grant immunity

State v. Ferguson

142 Wash. 2d 631 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 4, 2001

A sentence is considered clearly excessive only if the trial court abused its discretion in establishing the length of the sentence. 88 There is an abuse of discretion when, under the circumstances, no reasonable person would … Oxborrow, 106 Wn.2d 525, 531 , 723 P.2d 1123 (1986) (“[F]or action to be clearly excessive, it must be shown to be clearly unreasonable, i.e., exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, or an action that no

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.

Olch v. Pacific Press & Shear Co.

19 Wash. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 23, 1978

Clearly certain independent obligations run with the sale from the manufacturer to the buyer. … Thus, immunizing the employer from a third-party indemnity complaint constitutes an unequal division of responsibility.

United States v. Washington

20 F. Supp. 3d 899 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 2012

The language of the Settlement Agreement clearly and unequivocally states that in order for tidelands to qualify as “covered tidelands” and be considered “staked and cultivated” under ¶ 2(B)(ii) of the Agreement, documentation … Ada Deer, the decision maker, arbitrarily and in violation of clearly established law rejected those proposed *928 findings and inserted new findings drafted by Mr. Keep.

Towle v. Department of Fish & Wildlife

94 Wash. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 19, 1999

Although the Department argues on appeal that the record before us does not establish that Towle geared up for some other fishery, this assertion is not accurate. … The Department clearly had the opportunity to elicit any facts damaging to Towle’s explanation of his activities, but it chose not to.

Svendgard v. State

122 Wash. App. 670 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2004

cannot meet the essential requirements to qualify for a license. … SCHINDLER, J., and GROSSE, J., concur. *372-376 NOTES [1] Contrary to the defendants' position, the record establishes that plaintiff's counsel clearly explained this theory and the distinction between qualifying for a commercial

A.B., J.L., V. Kiwanis International

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 4, 2024

The court further held that the qualified immunity “is a personal immunity designed to limit an individual caseworker’s liability for damages.” Babcock II, 116 Wn.2d at 619. … And so, the court concluded that it could not extend the common law qualified immunity to the State “in the face of a statutory provision admonishing us not to construe an emergency immunity to abrogate sovereign immunity

Million v. Parker

115 Wash. 57 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1921

After qualifying, she filed an inventory which omitted two pieces of real property, one the home which was occupied by the deceased and his family from the time of its purchase in 1901 until his death, and thereafter by appellant … They *59 then called appellant as a witness, and by her testimony established that she was the wife of Joseph H.

State v. Cohen

19 Wash. App. 600 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 29, 1978

When the material finally did come back, the defendant stated that the closest qualified lab for him to use was in California, or possibly in Alaska. There was no suggestion of when tests could be done. … Further, the immunity statement by the prosecutor was not bargained in exchange for favorable testimony.

State v. Castilla

121 Wash. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 2004

DISCUSSION Treatment Session The principal issue here is Castilla’s contention that the evidence did not establish that sexual intercourse occurred during a “treatment session.” … The State presented evidence establishing that CNAs at NARC are responsible for “the hands-on care, activities of daily living, dressing, bathing, grooming, [and] assistance with feeding.” 6 CNAs are expected to respond to

Ruffer v. St. Frances Cabrini Hospital

56 Wash. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 16, 1990

Only a physician or other qualified expert is capable of determining the existence of a given risk and the chance of it occurring. Shannon , at 33. … However, the established case law clearly places the burden on the appellant to submit affidavits affirmatively presenting the factual evidence upon which she relies.

Brian P. Winkler v. James "Jim" B. Demeerleer

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 13, 2014

It does not provide immunity, but withholds the immunity afforded in subsection 1 in a narrow circumstance. … Subsection (2) clearly addresses the same case law duty.