Case law

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

State v. Wilson

6 Wash. App. 443 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 18, 1972

An objection was sustained to an attempt to establish the cost of his investment in his medical office and apartment facility. … Clearly, this factor would be of greater usefulness in some cases than in others.

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

Nelson v. White (In re White)

47 B.R. 410 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 8, 1985

Prior to bankruptcy, White was clearly in control of both White Metal and the profit-sharing plan. … Clearly, the ERISA plan purports to restrict alienation of beneficial interests.

Langworthy v. Clallam County Sheriff

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 23, 2024

taken within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction,” even if the motives 10 underlying the ultimate act are “clearly improper.” … (“[A] conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome 14 of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity 15 extended to judges and prosecutors.

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.

Young for Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

922 P.2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1996

Where the prerequisites of comment k are met, a manufacturer of such an unavoidably *70 unsafe product may be liable only in negligence for injuries proximately caused by the qualifying product. … At that time, Washington's blood shield statute provided immunity from strict liability for individuals and corporations dealing in blood products.

Envolve Pharmacy Sols., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue

Washington Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2024

We hold that Envolve qualifies for the exemption. … If the legislature had meant that, it would have said so clearly.

Ringhofer v. Ridge

172 Wash. App. 318 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 10, 2012

The plain language of RCW 2.36.072(4) clearly indicates that our legislature intended to limit the use of juror disqualification information to preliminarily determining whether persons summoned for jury service meet the … RCW 2.36-.072(4) clearly restricts public access to the juror disqualification information.

Tift v. Professional Nursing Services, Inc.

76 Wash. App. 577 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 1995

However, it nonetheless found for Tift on the ground that PNS had not established the third element of WAC 296-128-520(4)(b), namely, that her work "directly related to management policies or general business operations”. … Whether an exception applies in a particular case should be reviewed pursuant to the "clearly erroneous” standard.

Merges v. Adams

137 Wash. 208 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1926

treatise on the law of Real Property in Conveyancing, says: “ ‘The first requisite of an adequate description is that the land shall be identified with reasonable cer *212 tainty, but tbe degree of certainty required is always qualified … It clearly appears that appellants jointly occupied a suite of offices with a common entrance; that the notice was mailed to and received at that office ; that, while it was outwardly addressed to but one, the other acted

State v. Redwine

23 Wash. 2d 467 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1945

Clearly, it was error to admit in evidence, in violation of the constitutional right of the accused, the statement made by Farrell. … Liberty is impossible unless we possess certain rights of personal security and immunity of which the state cannot deprive us. These must be preserved at all costs.

Langworthy v. Clallam County Sheriff

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 23, 2024

Courts in the Ninth Circuit may screen an IFP 18 complaint before determining whether the plaintiff qualifies financially for IFP status, and a 19 determination that a complaint is subject to dismissal under the statute … (“[A] conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to predetermine the outcome 7 of a judicial proceeding, while clearly improper, nevertheless does not pierce the immunity 8 extended to judges and prosecutors.

Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

130 Wash. App. 127 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 25, 2005

While presumably the entire 7,500 acres of designated [agricultural resource land] would qualify, so would potentially thousands of other acres. … As of May 2001, the County had identified 6,995 acres of agricultural resource land and 21,753 acres of chapter 84.34 RCW qualified land.

T.S. v. Boy Scouts of America

157 Wash. 2d 416 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 27, 2006

On the other hand, the majority’s recognition of a First Amendment qualified privilege against discovery requires much more judicial footwork: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting … Further, we declared over 25 years ago that article I, section 7 “clearly recognizes an individual’s right to privacy with no express limitations.” State v.

White v. King County Sheriff's Office

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 31, 2024

Because there is a factual and legal dispute about whether qualified immunity 4 renders Defendants immune from suit, and this has been adequately stated in short plain terms in 5 Defendants’ amended answer, see Dkt … to qualified immunity.”

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.

Hodgins v. Oles

8 Wash. App. 279 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 25, 1973

Clearly the three head jailers, currently employed by the city, were invested with superior authority within the jail and had general authority to exercise their discretion in jail management. … This was necessary to the plaintiff to establish two ultimate facts (1) the degree of care exercised by the city and (2) the degree of mental incompetency of the plaintiff.

Sohol v. Clark

78 Wash. 2d 813 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1971

It might be argued that noncompetent Indians no longer need a tax advantage because they have become independent, qualified members of the modern body politic. … The statement of facts establishes that all exhibits were marked, offered and referred to by counsel and the trial court without objection.

Save Our Summers v. Washington State Department of Ecology

132 F. Supp. 2d 896 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 14, 2000

The first element is satisfied since Plaintiffs are clearly qualified individuals with disabilities. … The District Court Executive is directed to enter this order and to provide copies to counsel. 1 . 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a private cause of action for the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured under