Case law

Osborn v. Mason County

134 P.3d 197 · Washington Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

The "anyone else," in context, was clearly Dr. … The plaintiffs have also established sufficient facts from which a jury could find Dracobly failed to exercise reasonable care.

Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.

996 P.2d 582 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2000

If the Legislature chooses to do so, it will have the opportunity to clearly detail the requirements necessary to qualify for that exception. … It is illogical to look to a federal regulation to establish the test for determining whether an employee qualifies as an exempt employee, but disregard the same regulation when determining whether an inadvertent deduction

Stroud v. Klosi

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 2, 2025

He thus argues that both quasi-judicial and qualified 22 immunity bar the claims against him. Id. at 1–5. But the complaint is unclear. … The Court recommends that, before seeking to amend > | her complaint, Plaintiff review the authorities cited by Defendant Fournier regarding quasi- 3 | judicial and qualified immunity.

De La Torre v. City of Renton

164 F. Supp. 3d 1275 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 22, 2016

Therefore, Plaintiffs Condo is clearly identified as the scene of a recent crime. … Defendants also move for summary judgment on the grounds that Onishi is entitled to qualified immunity for his role in seeking the warrant.

State v. Schmidt

141 Wash. 660 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1927

State, 69 Ala. 235 . *665 The witnesses in this instance fully qualified under the rule as stated. … In our discussion of other questions we have somewhat indicated its character, and it is sufficient here to say that, to our minds, it all but conclusively establishes the appellant’s guilt.

Fraser v. Monroe

1 Wash. App. 14 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 1969

Essentially, plaintiff contends that ROA 33 (similar to CAROA. 33 in this court) precludes the defendants from assigning error to a finding of fact without also filing a cross-appeal and properly qualifying as cross-appellants … Furthermore, the record before us clearly demonstrates that such a continuous and automatic flow of events did not occur in this instance.

In Re Detention of As

982 P.2d 1156 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 9, 1999

Work appropriately qualified as an expert. … To the contrary, the statutes clearly contemplate procedures involving very disturbed individuals.

Cox v. City of Lynnwood

72 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 13, 1993

Such ordinance must be strictly construed in favor of property owners and should not be extended by implication to cases not clearly within their scope and purpose." Morin v. … The Coxes sold their lots, and the sales price compared to the value of the lots when the BLA was denied established the Coxes' loss within a reasonable degree of certainty.

Burchfiel v. Boeing Corp.

205 P.3d 145 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 2, 2009

Burchfiel suffered a qualifying disability. The trial court erred in concluding to the contrary. … The court also instructed the jury that to establish unlawful retaliation Mr.

Rogers v. Department of Children Youth and Families

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 12, 2021

immunity. … immunity defense.

Bishop v. City of Buckley

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 19, 2024

‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged 11 conduct.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified 12 immunity “as a matter of law if, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], they 13 violated no clearly established constitutional right.

Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 22, 2022

But as Defendants themselves concede, they are 4 not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. Further, a good faith defense to 5 § 1983 is not the same as a qualified immunity defense. See Allen v. … Santa Clara Cnty. 6 Correctional Peace Officers Ass’n, 38 F.4th 68, 73 (9th Cir. 2022) (distinguishing 7 qualified immunity from a good faith defense to § 1983 claims).

State of Washington v. Aaron L. Linder

190 Wash. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 13, 2015

Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1,9,653 P.2d 1024 (1982), our Supreme Court, surveying prior cases, observed that "we have not limited the exclusionary rule to protection of the constitutional immunity from unreasonable search (or seizure … Linder Bonds had "little hesitation in concluding that [those] costs clearly outweigh the limited benefits which would be obtained from excluding the confession because of the illegal arrest." Id. at 14.

Activate, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

150 Wash. App. 807 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 16, 2009

“Actual consumption was not necessary; a preparatory act alone was sufficient to establish an intervening use.” Seattle Film-Works, 106 Wn. App. at 459 . … Finally, in its brief, DOR also notes that Rule 116(7)(d) provides a specific example that “clearly indicates [DOR’s] position on a similar transaction.” See Resp’t’s Br. at 35.

State v. Longshore

5 P.3d 1256 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 2000

Under a grant of transactional immunity, Irvin, the driver of the vehicle, testified on behalf of the state. … But substantial evidence was presented at trial by qualified experts to demonstrate there is, in fact, a quantifiable market value for uncertified clams.

Grant v. Alperovich

993 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 3, 2014

To succeed on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3), Plaintiff must prove (1) conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving her of the equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act … Plaintiff's argument that HIPAA establishes the standard of care for Defendants’ negligence, see dkt. # 122 at 15; dkt. # 133 at 8, is not persuasive.

Sorenson v. City of Bellingham

80 Wash. 2d 547 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1972

We believe it is important, however, to clearly state for the benefit of the lawmakers and voters of this state that a restriction placed upon qualification for office, unless necessary to promote a compelling state interest … “In a society such as ours, characterized by its ‘mobility’ and ‘anonymity’ ... a landowner is no more likely to be permanently established in a town — and, by that token, better qualified to govern— than one who is not a

Limstrom v. Ladenburg

39 P.3d 351 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 15, 2002

Second, what qualifies as exempt work product under RCW 42.17.310( l )(j) and Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 136 Wash.2d 595 , 963 P.2d 869 (1998). … MANDATORY DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL CASES Absent Washington case law on waiver of work product immunity, we look to other jurisdictions.

Department of Ecology v. Public Utility District No. 1

121 Wash. 2d 179 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1993

We conclude that Tacoma has not carried its burden of establishing federal preemption. … In its findings of fact, the trial court found the Board's conclusion to be clearly erroneous.

Donaldson v. City of Seattle

65 Wash. App. 661 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 1992

Duty To Continue Investigation While the DVPA clearly establishes a mandatory duty to arrest, this case presents a question as to what the scope of that duty is. … Second, while the City clearly owed Leola a duty pursuant to the DVPA, the Value Village robbery was not *676 related to this duty and Donaldson can establish no general duty to arrest Barnes for robbery.