Case law

State Ex Rel. Stephens v. Odell

61 Wash. 2d 476 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1963

That restriction, as to population, was imposed by the trial court to insure that the proposed area of incorporation would qualify as a third class city. … Such circumvention of the board’s power should not be permitted unless that result is clearly dictated by the statutes, and we do not find such a mandate within the present statutes.

Guillen v. Pierce County

181 A.L.R. Fed. 741 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2001

Guillen, however, does not qualify, since the statute’s examples of qualifying parties clearly indicate a restricted understanding of “proper interest” that cannot reasonably be construed to include persons involved in entirely … But that ruling was promptly vacated as “clearly wrong.” Id.

Northstar Case Management Obo Raymond Bell, V. State Of Wa Dshs

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 22, 2026

App. 2d at 142 (the word “may” in RCW 71.05.050(3) did not create a mandatory duty requiring health care providers to detain patients suspected of qualifying for an involuntary commitment and, therefore, the statute did … The court reasoned that even though the relevant statute provided immunity from liability for people who cooperated in good faith with an investigation arising from a report, “ ‘[this] grant of immunity clearly implies

Quinault Indian Nation v. Imperium Terminal Servs., LLC

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2017

Respondents' projects clearly fall within that broad policy. … This is clearly a transportation activity that "originate[s] or conclude[s]" in Washington's coastal waters. Id.

Snelling v. Riveland

983 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 10, 1997

DOC Policy 450.100 was promulgated to establish procedures to govern and manage incoming and outgoing mail. … Based on the disposition of this matter, the court does not address defendants’ assertions regarding lack of personal participation by several defendants and qualified immunity.

Ventura v. City of Seattle

99 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 19, 2000

In order to establish the preceding uses the following must be obtained: a Special Use Permit to establish commercial or recreational moorage; a Master Use Permit to establish use; SEPA and Shoreline Substantial Development … Petitioners’ interpretation would make the determination of whether a craft qualified as a vessel dependent on non-statutory sources.

State v. Alkire

124 Wash. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 15, 2004

Once those facts were established, the statutes gave the court discretion to impose a higher penalty. The court merely fixed the punishment within the authorized range. … App. 165, 169 , 84 P.3d 935 (2004) (relevant qualifying facts of prior conviction were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and thus could not be used to enhance the penalty for a subsequent conviction under Apprendi

McKendry v. McKendry

2 Wash. App. 882 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 1970

The finding of fact supporting the award of alimony did not establish that defendant was unable to support himself. … However, it is doubtful that such a finding established defendant’s need for alimony at the time of the divorce.

State v. Seifert

65 Wash. 596 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 11, 1911

If the killing was excusable or justifiable, the fact would constitute a defense for the defendant to establish. “The state is not bound to anticipate defenses and aver facts rendering them unavailing. … Hodgdon, 41 Vt. 139 , it is said: “Exceptions should be negatived only where they are descriptive of the offense or define it, but where the exceptions afford matter of excuse merely, and do not define nor qualify the offense

Smith v. Shannon

100 Wash. 2d 26 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1983

While the second step of this determination of materiality clearly does not require expert testimony, the first step almost as clearly does. … Only a physician (or other qualified expert) is capable of judging what risks exist and their likelihood of occurrence.

In Re The Marriage Of Andrew J. Aiken v. Tina M. Aiken

194 Wash. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 23, 2016

In Mull, the partnership distributions are clearly compensation. … Further, any suggestion that Andrew's stock purchases function as a retirement vehicle is not established in this record.

Enrico v. Overson

19 Wash. App. 483 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 1978

Appellant made internal markings and changed the plans to the extent that they needed redrafting in order to qualify for a building permit. … The law on this subject is clearly stated, in the case of Hitchcock v.

State v. Hemrich

93 Wash. 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1916

It says: “Every other liquor or liquid,” the word “other” thus qualifying only the words “liquor or liquid” which are subsequently qualified by the words “containing intoxicating properties.” State v. … The admission clearly negatives the idea that it will of itself generate any alcohol whatever. It is not even claimed by the state that it will.

In Re Sehome Park Care Center, Inc.

903 P.2d 443 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1995

However, the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents instead of only the immediately preceding one. Judson v. … Here a comma introduced the "but only if" qualifier.

State v. E.J.J.

183 Wash. 2d 497 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 25, 2015

Majority at 505-06. *522 But, as discussed, the record clearly establishes E.J.J.’s hindering conduct. 26 ¶41 The majority also contends that E.J.J.’s refusal to close the front door was “so intertwined” with his “protected … But the presence of speech does not immunize unlawful conduct.

Cordall v. STATE EX REL. DVA AND SHS

96 Wash. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 9, 1999

Cordall’s veterans were qualified to receive Medicaid. … Once an institutionalized veteran qualifies for Medicaid, the state Medicaid program pays for the cost of institutional care and the patient is required to contribute any qualifying income to that cost.

Bayha v. Public Utility District No. 1

2 Wash. 2d 85 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 27, 1939

by a city or town,” the word “none” must refer to “public utility,” as therein qualified, or, in other words, to a public utility owned by a city or town? … other sections, unless the legislative intent that it shall so operate is clearly disclosed.”

Lisa Steel v. Olympia Early Learning Center

195 Wash. App. 811 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2016

The Hearn court found that defendants impliedly waived attorney-client privilege where they raised a qualified immunity affirmative defense to a civil rights violations claim that they acted in good faith and on advice … Although plaintiffs like those in this case who want to enforce a covenant judgment settlement clearly have a strong incentive to initiate a reasonableness hearing under RCW 4.22.060, contrary to petitioners’ argument,

Noble v. SAFE HARBOR FAMILY PRESERVATION TRUST

169 P.3d 45 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 9, 2007

Kennedy, 115 Wash.App. at 873 , 63 P.3d 866 . ¶ 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 Stokes. II.

State Ex Rel. Brown v. Long

180 Wash. 602 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1935

After reciting considerable matter of circumstantial and testimonial character, the concluding paragraph of the return clearly presents the situation. … Such a plan by which it is thought witnesses may qualify to testify in court would do violence to cherished forms and principles, and be at variance with well-understood fundamental rights.