Case law

State Of Washington, V. Alexandria Lockhart

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 3, 2025

(2)(a) A maximum time limit of seven days as measured from the [DSHS’] receipt of the court order, or a maximum time limit of 14 days as measured from signature of the court order, whichever is shorter, is established … It clearly does. 12 No. 59738-1-II The legislature has made it especially clear that sanctions should not flow from a violation of these statutory deadlines

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Department of Revenue

166 Wash. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 1, 2012

Agency Action Exclusions ¶16 RCW 34.05.510 provides, “This chapter establishes the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action.” … App. 654, 658 , 86 P.3d 202 (2004). ¶33 Through RCW 4.92.010, “the State has waived its sovereign immunity from lawsuits of various types.” Architectural Woods, Inc. v.

Smith v. Poynor

District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 14, 2023

If there is no constitutional 20 1 violation, the inquiry ends, and the individual is entitled to qualified immunity. 2 Ioane v. … immunity.

Abdur-Rahman v. Napolitano

868 F. Supp. 2d 1158 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 13, 2012

The EAJA partially waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and creates a precisely-defined class of adjudications in which an award of attorney’s fees is allowed. W. Watersheds Project v. … Adbur-Rahman has submitted a declaration which establishes that he meets this financial requirement. Dkt. # 123. II.

Dodge City Saloon v. State Liquor Control

166 Wash. App. 828 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 28, 2012

The fulcrum point upon which the [Liquor] Board's key argument rests is that card itself stated clearly when [C.M.] would turn 18, which also clearly meant that at the time he was not 21 either. … A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.

COBRA ROOFING SERVICE, INC. v. Department of Labor & Industries

97 P.3d 17 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2004

A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. … "A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought." RCW 4.84.350(1).

O'DONOGHUE v. State

66 Wash. 2d 787 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1965

January 21, 1964 — Appellants transmitted a claim to the Washington State Auditor, who rejected the claim on the same date on the basis that liability had not been established. … The 1961 session of the legislature adopted chapter 136 whereby the State of Washington waived its sovereign immunity and consented to action against it for damages arising out of its tortious conduct.

Stan Schiff, M.d., Ph.d., Resp/cross-pet V. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. Et Ano, Pet/cross-resp

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 28, 2022

In Folweiler, we clearly held that the precise practice in which Liberty Mutual is engaged violates the CPA. … Moreover, decisional authority does not support Liberty Mutual’s contention that the regulatory approval of an insurance policy is sufficient to establish immunity from a CPA claim.

Stevens County v. Futurewise

146 Wash. App. 493 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2008

It was only after that meeting that the county added a subsection to SCC 13.10.034(3) that qualified the classification of critical habitat: C. … The county also fails to establish identity in the subject matter.

Noble v. Safe Harbor Family Preservation Trust

141 Wash. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 9, 2007

App. at 873 . ¶12 Moreover, that Safe Harbor did not join Tillicum does not immunize it from responsibility for Tillicum’s attorney fees under RCW 8.24.030. … Clearly, the full responsibility for the costs of litigating the claimed alternative feasible access rests with Safe Harbor and the Stokeses. II.

Ridpath v. Denee

85 Wash. 322 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1915

There is clearly no conflict between the Federal and the state laws upon this question. … The appellant attempted to prove that the respondent was in possession of a large tract of unsurveyed government land unlawfully, and that he was not a qualified homesteader.

Rickey v. Williams

8 Wash. 479 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1894

Appellants dispute this, but first contend that the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action; that the matter of establishing and removing county seats is not a judicial function, but is purely … Notice of such election, clearly stating the object, shall be given, and the election must be held and conducted, and the returns made, in all respects, in the manner prescribed by law in regard to elections for county officers

In re the Personal Restraint of Dyer

143 Wash. 2d 384 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 2001

In conclusion, the Deputy Director found that Dyer “clearly does not qualify for participation in the extended family visits program based on existing standards.” 8 In March 1995, the Indeterminate Sentence Review Board ( … It is a privilege granted only to a few qualified inmates.

Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Board

168 Wash. App. 388 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 15, 2012

The fulcrum point upon which the [Liquor] Board’s key argument rests is that card itself stated clearly when [C.M.] would turn 18, which also clearly meant that at the time he was not 21 either. … A qualified party shall be considered to *405 have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.

State v. Woods

3 Wash. App. 691 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 30, 1970

The officer testified that Woods was promptly advised of his constitutional immunity from self-incrimination and that Woods readily signed a form entitled “Constitutional Rights” in which he acknowledged that he had been … In any event, Woods argues that a 101.20W hearing must in all cases qualify evidence of custodial statements.

Activate v. Washington State Dept. of Rev.

209 P.3d 524 · 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 FilmWorks, 106 Wash.App. at 459 , 24 P.3d 460 . … Finally, it is 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. Brown

100 Wash. App. 104 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 27, 2000

We hold that the court properly denied Brown’s witness immunity request as well as his motion to sever the felony murder count. … In other words, all crimes that did not arise from a single act or omission were clearly separate and distinct.

Chemithon Corp. v. Agency

19 Wash. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 10, 1978

Other sections of regulation 1 establish the substantive standards based on chemical or physical composition of the emissions. … Clearly Erroneous We first consider whether or not this matter should be reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" test. In Ancheta v.

King v. Snohomish County

105 Wash. App. 857 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 19, 2001

King, stating that he did not believe the County was liable for her son’s injury because of immunity statutorily afforded the County. … The Court held, however, that the plaintiffs could not establish the third factor requiring justifiable reliance.

Cobra Roofing Service, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries

122 Wash. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2004

A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. … “A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.” RCW 4.84.350(1).