Case law

Faasch v. Karney

145 Wash. 390 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1927

The court proceeded in a very careful manner to select two competent, qualified, disinterested physicians for that purpose. … In our opinion, it clearly preponderates in favor of the findings, which in turn support the judgment. In treating Mrs. Faasch, the appellant performed two surgical operations that were similar.

Ketschau v. United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 2, 2024

“Anglo–American 2 common law has long recognized judicial immunity, a sweeping form of immunity for acts 3 performed by judges that relate to the judicial process.” … “Absolute immunity fails to attach to judicial officers 5 only when they act clearly and completely outside the scope of their jurisdiction.”

In Re Personal Restraint of Hutchinson

53 P.3d 17 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2002

Because a state immunity law actually deprived the witnesses of that privilege, the witnesses were subsequently prosecuted for contempt. … Hutchinson has failed to carry his burden of establishing that the "constitutional error[s] worked to his `actual and substantial prejudice.'" In re Pers. Restraint of St.

State v. Rose

7 Wash. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 1972

The record clearly establishes that the defendant, Stanley D. Rose, and companion, Donald F. … Ses., which became effective August 9, 1971. 4 The record clearly establishes that the two officers approached Mr. Rose from two different directions. 5 Some municipal ordinances do define such a crime.

Osborn v. Mason County

157 Wash. 2d 18 · Washington Supreme Court · May 18, 2006

The majority holds that the State is immunized from liability unless the injured person, or someone “in privity” with the injured person, relies on the State’s promises. Majority at 26. … The “anyone else,” in context, was clearly Dr.

State v. Hicks

163 Wash. 2d 477 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2008

The Trial Court’s Denial of the Batson Challenge Was Not Clearly Erroneous 1. … that “ ‘a consistent pattern of official racial discrimination’ is not ‘a necessary predicate to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause’ ” and that “ ‘[a] single invidiously discriminatory governmental act’ is not ‘immunized

Bremerton Public Safety Ass'n v. City of Bremerton

104 Wash. App. 226 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 12, 2001

But “eligible” means “qualified.” Webster’s II College Dictionary (1999), at 365. … And, as stated above, “otherwise eligible” means “otherwise qualified.”

Olympic Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

163 Wash. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 29, 2011

But the burden is on the party asserting the deduction to show that it qualifies for the deduction. … For collateral estoppel to apply, the party seeking application of the doctrine must establish that (1) the issue decided in the earlier proceeding was identical to the issue presented in the later proceeding; (2) the earlier

Pierce County v. King

48 Wash. 2d 43 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1955

This testimony sufficiently established the value of the furniture to warrant reception of the evidence in question. … However, the court had not permitted him to testify as to these studies, because he had not been qualified as an expert on that subject.

Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

897 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 26, 2012

Ultimately, the Towage Agreement language contains qualifying language that distinguishes this case from the Fifth Circuit precedents. … Defendant’s reliance on the well-established case law is therefore misplaced.

In Re the Estate of Calvin

188 Wash. 283 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1936

Evanson was appointed, and thereafter duly qualified, as administrator. The estate, consisting of real and personal property, was appraised at a value of $3,036.19. … and distinctly proved by at least two witnesses, and when any such will shall be so established, the provisions thereof shall be distinctly stated in the judgment establishing it, and such judgment shall be recorded as wills

Witters v. Commission for the Blind

102 Wash. 2d 624 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1984

Appellant Witters meets the medical and physical eligibility requirements for status as a legally blind person, qualifying him to receive vocational assistance pursuant to RCW 74.16. … The State clearly has an interest in assisting the visually handicapped.

Gamble v. Dawson

67 Wash. 72 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1912

Appellant is a duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of James Dawson, deceased, in the state of Washington, appointed by the superior court of Spokane county. … The same authority mentioned above, in § 363, says: “It is a well established principle of law that shares of stock may, for certain purposes, have a situs at two separate places at the same time.

Gaffney v. Scott Publishing Co.

41 Wash. 2d 191 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1952

By the law of the case established in that opinion, the editorial is libelous per se. … The trial court was bound to follow the established law of the case, and our only inquiry is whether or not it did so correctly.

Kennedy v. Pemberton

185 Wash. 61 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1936

This statute is precise in its choice and use of terms, and expresses the intention of the legislature as clearly and definitely as words can express it. … The bond of the Constitution qualifies their jurisdiction. This is the principle which underlies the decisions cited by respondents.

Ryan v. Department of Social & Health Services

171 Wash. App. 454 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 25, 2012

established at the time the department adopted its notice regulation. … At the time it was filed, it was clearly established that State action that imposes a stigma that alters an individual’s eligibility to *472 exercise rights under state law or to work in a chosen field implicates protected

State v. LG Electronics, Inc.

186 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2016

Id. ¶21 Here, although consumers may benefit from restitution, the legislature clearly intended for the attorney general’s enforcement under .080 to benefit the public generally. … In considering state claims brought for violations of the Sherman Act, post- Frito-Lay, the Ninth Circuit concluded it is well established [t]hat a state as parens patriae may sue to redress a violation of the antitrust laws

Nocita v. Krohn

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 28, 2024

The plaintiff must show that officials violated 11 a constitutional right and that this right was “clearly established.” Id. A court may 12 consider the two prongs in whatever order it chooses. Pearson v. … immunity because the first prong of 2 the qualified immunity test is not satisfied.  3 C.

Graves v. Dunlap

87 Wash. 648 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1915

The purpose of this action was to establish the plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession of certain game animals and birds, and to restrain the defendants, the game warden, and the prosecuting attorney of Spokane county … It is a rule of construction that a statute will not be given a retroactive effect unless by its terms it is shown clearly that that was the legislative intent. State ex rel. American Sav. Union v.

Sauls

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 10, 2026

Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity 6 Pierce County next contends that judicial and quasi-judicial immunity bar Plaintiff’s 7 claims. Dkt. # 40 at 7. … Pierce County also contends in passing that Plaintiff “fails to establish proximate causation[.]” 24 See Dkt. # 40 at 16.