Case law

State v. Atsbeha

16 P.3d 626 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

Rose was qualified to testify as an expert, [8] but nevertheless excluded her testimony with the following explanation: THE COURT: ... … This evidence would be relevant and admissible to establish an insanity defense under RCW 9A.12.010, [48] but not relevant and admissible to establish a diminished capacity defense.

Sutherland v. Southcenter Shopping Center, Inc.

3 Wash. App. 833 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 18, 1970

The balance of the process requiring the obtaining of signatures and qualifying the signer involves nonspeech elements. … Ct. 1601 (1968), inasmuch as they establish the framework within which the issues presented in this case must be decided.

Anderson v. Grant County

Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2026

Grant County, No. 103111-4 immunization from liability will nullify the jail’s duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the flow of drugs into the facility.” Id. at 16. … The applicability of these statutory defenses was not restricted or qualified in any manner, even where a special relationship existed.

Citoli v. City of Seattle

115 Wash. App. 459 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 25, 2002

The record indisputably establishes that police had valid safety concerns at the time utilities were terminated. … Furthermore, Mayor Schell and Chief Stamper are entitled to qualified immunity unless Citoli (1) identifies the right violated, (2) shows that the officials should have known the constitutional parameters of the violation

Guild v. Saint Martin's College

64 Wash. App. 491 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 2, 1992

Clearly, there is no tort liability. The other wrongful discharge theory that the Guilds make reference to in their brief and in argument is breach of contract. They cite Thompson v. St. … Martin's was contractually bound, through contract, to employ only an academically qualified person as dean, and that PerrienWoods was not qualified for that position, the breach of that provision in the contract does not

Cougar Business Owners Ass'n v. State

97 Wash. 2d 466 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1982

She established a Mount St. … The test is clearly set forth in Petstel, Inc. v.

Franklin County Sheriff's Office v. Sellers

27 Wash. App. 797 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 26, 1980

It was his view that if the only qualified applicant was a woman, only temporary arrangements should be made and the position should be left open until a qualified male became available. … I note that under our state statute or regulations, no immunity from liability exists.

State v. Winterstein

167 Wash. 2d 620 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2009

It differs from its federal counterpart in that article I, section 7 “clearly recognizes an individual’s right to privacy with no express limitations.” State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, 110 , 640 P.2d 1061 *632 (1982). … When evidence is obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures, there is no need to balance the particular circumstances and interests involved.

State v. Hults

9 Wash. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 1973

Most clearly, it can be said that he had dominion and control over the upstairs bedroom. … Measured by the test of admissibility set forth above, we find no reason for refusing to admit the conclusions of a properly qualified expert as to the identity of the person whose fingers match the latent prints lifted from

State v. Leek

26 Wash. App. 651 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 3, 1980

They contend that there was insufficient evidence to establish that a "profit" was *653 realized in their respective transactions. … No evidence was presented to establish the value of the heroin at the time of the respective transactions.

In Re Custody of Afj

260 P.3d 889 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 16, 2011

foster parents from qualifying as de facto parents. … One social worker noted that A.F.J. had "clearly developed a primary attachment to [Franklin] as his parent."

Bjork v. City of Tacoma

76 Wash. 225 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1913

Eliminating the questions of notice to the city and contrib *228 utory negligence of the parents of the child, which, under the evidence, were clearly for the jury, there is but one question presented for our consideration … S.) 88, chiefly relied upon by the respondent, though carrying the doctrine of immunity as a matter of law to a considerable extent, by no means goes as far as we are asked to extend it in this case.

Henne v. City of Yakima

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2015

That statute also establishes procedures independent from those contained in RCW 4.24.500-.520 for bringing and resolving a motion to strike SLAPP suits and claims, as well as for obtaining damages, costs, and fees. … Yakima is a municipal corporation and clearly a legal entity, so it is a "person" within the meaning ofRCW 4.24.525(1)(e). Our decision in Segaline v.

State ex rel. Carroll v. Superior Court

113 Wash. 54 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1920

A natural born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. … The legislature has a discretion in determining the character of proof that may be required to establish the fact of citizenship in each case.

United Chiropractors of Washington, Inc. v. State

90 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1978

Thus, in legal effect, the private bodies make the appointments under the procedure established in RCW 18.25.015 just as clearly as — though perhaps less directly than — they do under RCW 18.26.040. … Our decision regarding delegation renders unnecessary decisions on appellant's other contentions; we do not reach claims based upon privileges and immunities provisions of the state and federal constitutions and claims based

Hostetler v. Ward

41 Wash. App. 343 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 1985

When legislation clearly manifests the intent to impose a duty, the breach of which may result in civil liability, that legislation establishes the standard of conduct required in a particular situation. … Seattle, supra (distinguishing public nuisances per se from nuisances per accidens, and holding that the latter "are clearly negligence actions," giving rise to former defense of governmental immunity).

Robert Maddaus v. Edwards

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 11, 2021

On February 23, 2019, this Court issued 12 a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending denial of defendants’ motion on 13 the ground of qualified immunity, and the deferral of defendants’ arguments on the 14 merits … immunity.

Daniels v. Shaw

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 23, 2019

Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 15 || (9th Cir. 1985). 16 Unless plaintiff makes a two-part showing, qualified immunity shields government 17 || officials from liability. … The plaintiff must show both: the official(s) violated a federal statutory or 18 || constitutional right, and—at the time of the alleged act or failure to act there was clearly 19 || established law that defined the contours

King County Water District No. 54 v. King County Boundary Review Board

87 Wash. 2d 536 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1976

The commands of the equal protection and privileges and immunities clauses are, of course, applicable here. 2 The latter provision was the basis for the holding in Malim v. Benthien, supra. … Ariz. 1970), aff’d mem., 402 U.S. 967 (1971), the court upheld a state statute limiting the franchise in municipal water bond elections to qualified electors of the municipality.

State v. Strong

56 Wash. App. 715 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 24, 1990

Where there is a well established rule implying the requisite mental state as an element of the crime, its omission from the information is of no significance. See State v. Bower, 28 Wn. … It followed the language of the statute and it clearly notified Strong that he was accused of taking personal property from Adrian Richards by force or threat.