Case law

Rickert v. Public Disclosure Commission

161 Wash. 2d 843 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2007

contain a majority opinion requiring that all of the elements for a defamation suit must be established in order for speech to fall outside First Amendment protections under New York Times. … First, it is the standard established by the Court to satisfy competing constitutional concerns.

Young v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound

85 Wash. 2d 332 · Washington Supreme Court · May 8, 1975

However, this rule is clearly inapplicable to an expert witness who gives opinion evidence at trial, having previously expressed an inconsistent opinion. … Malan was qualified to give his medical opinion as to whether the parents should have been informed of the hyperextended position of the fetal neck.

Godfrey v. Washington

84 Wash. 2d 959 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1975

Those two opinions dealt with the statutory abolition of a prior statutory immunity (Hammack) or defense (Nogo sek). … Such could hardly have been the intent or purpose of a legislature that clearly abolished contributory negligence as a bar to recovery.

Stout v. Warren

176 Wash. 2d 263 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2012

The burden is on the party asserting that an activity is abnormally dangerous to establish a factual basis for that conclusion. See Anderson, 801 F.2d at 939-40 . … Notably, the statute does not provide immunity to the bounty hunter. On remand, CJ Johnson may assert assumption of risk or comparative fault, depending on the facts.

State v. Case

187 Wash. 2d 85 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 8, 2016

VRP (Mar. 17-18, 2013) at 6. ¶33 The majority asserts that this stipulation “appeared to establish that Case agreed he had two prior qualifying convictions under RCW 26.50.110(5) as alleged in the charging information.” … LEXIS 5907 , at *5. ¶37 Under this authority, Case’s stipulation was insufficient to establish that he had two qualifying prior convictions. ¶38 The State has made the backup argument that Case invited this error by signing

Tait v. King Broadcasting Co.

1 Wash. App. 250 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 3, 1969

Pa. 1968) to establish the proposition he is not a public figure. The case does not apply. … The focus of inquiry is directed to establishing the state of the defendant’s mind.

Bankhead v. City of Tacoma

23 Wash. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 29, 1979

It clearly states that sick leave time off from work does not count toward completion of the probationary period. … In the present case, plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence that established any questions of material fact about the breach of the qualified privilege.

State v. Parris

98 Wash. 2d 140 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1982

The Superior Court found the testimony admissible, and this ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Division Two, which held that the trustworthiness of DeHart's statements was established in that they qualified as exceptions … In order to qualify as a statement against penal interest, a declaration need not have been a clear and unequivocal admission of criminal conduct. In United States v.

Bunting v. State

87 Wash. App. 647 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 2, 1997

In 1986 the Legislature further revised Washington’s tort law by establishing proportionate liability, making joint and several liability the exception rather than *652 the rule. … Co., 120 Wn.2d 246, 295-98 , 840 P.2d 860 (1992). 1 In this case Timothy clearly could not be a jointly and severally liable defendant without rescission of the insurance settlement and release.

Contreraz v. City of Tacoma

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 15, 2024

plaintiff establishes that: (1) the official violated a constitutional right; and (2) that 8 right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … immunity test, there was clearly established precedent that would have made it 14 clear enough to reasonable police officers that the acts

Grae-El v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 21, 2022

15 employees cannot reach the separate actions of their employer,’ and so ‘[a]n agent’s 16 immunity from civil liability generally does not establish a defense for the principal.’” 17 (3/1/22 Order at 18 (quoting … See Yuille, 45 P.3d 15 at 1110; Miles, 6 P.3d at 117-18; Grennan, 2001 WL 76959, at *2. 16 The courts considered “[t]he purpose behind the immunity” established by RCW 17 26.44.060, which they found was

Armantrout v. Carlson

166 Wash. 2d 931 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2009

ANALYSIS ¶8 RCW 4.20.020 establishes two tiers of beneficiaries in a wrongful death suit. … By excluding the everyday services a child would routinely provide, the trial court clearly established the boundaries within which the jury would be allowed to consider the Armantrouts’ financial dependence on valuable services

State v. Queen

73 Wash. 2d 706 · Washington Supreme Court · May 2, 1968

Piche, 71 Wn.2d 583 , 430 P.2d 522 (1967), to the effect that a regular practicing attorney is presumed to be qualified, does not apply *708 in the instant case because appellant’s trial counsel was disbarred approximately … Mode, 57 Wn.2d 829, 833 , 360 P.2d 159 (1961),said: Mistakes or errors of judgment do not establish the violation of a constitutional right.

Hill v. Sacred Heart Medical Center

143 Wash. App. 438 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 26, 2008

Heparin-induced thrombo-cytopenia (HIT) can trigger such significant life- or limb-threatening venous and/or arterial thromboembolisms. 5 HIT is an immune-mediated reaction to heparin. ¶9 Health care providers estimate the … The issue is whether the Hills’ experts established the second element. *448 ¶25 Mr.

State ex rel. Richey v. Smith

42 Wash. 237 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1906

, as a general principle of law, that it is the province of the legislature to determine whether the conditions exist which warrant the exercise of this power; but the question, what are the subjects of its exercise, is clearly … E. 373 , an act forbidding the employment of bakers in biscuit, bread or cake bakeries, or in confectionery establishments for more than sixty hours in any one week, came before the court for consideration.

Negron v. Snoqualmie Valley Hospital

86 Wash. App. 579 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 5, 1997

It is indeed well-settled that when medical testimony is necessary to establish causation of injury or disease, that testimony must be given by a qualified person in terms of reasonable medical probability. 11 We applied … The plaintiff sought to show that the emotional distress depressed his immune system, resulting in a case of active hepatitis.

Shaw v. Shumway

3 Wash. 2d 112 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1940

been signed by more than ten per cent of the qualified electors. … Clearly, there is a difference between the entry of a judicial order requiring the calling of a special election to fill an unanticipated vacancy in an elective office, when there is not sufficient time before the date of

Wheeler v. Broggi

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity 14 In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argued that Defendants Broggi and Olmstead were 15 entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 as to Plaintiff … Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), 3 sets forth the standard for a qualified immunity defense to a civil rights claim of “judicial 4 deception.”

Seattle High School Chapter No. 200 v. Sharples

159 Wash. 424 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1930

The exercise of the power to employ does not in any way affect a present teaching force or any part of it, but only the right of contract in creating or establishing a future teaching force. … We are very clearly of opinion that nothing exists in the statutes giving the courts any such power.”

Lundeen v. Department of Labor & Industries

78 Wash. 2d 66 · Washington Supreme Court · May 20, 1970

As to such a claim under the Military Claims Act he need establish only causation; if he chooses the Federal Tort Claims Act he must, of course, establish negligence. … The myth of a gift, when a government compensated those who had been injured by its representatives, disappeared when governmental immunity was exorcised. If Mrs.