Case law

McKillip v. Grays Harbor Publishing Co.

100 Wash. 657 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1918

. *663 The article clearly charges the appellant with moral delinquency. The charge, in effect, is that he unlawfully lied about an honorable opponent. To a man of normal sensibilities this is a most grievous charge. … The court further said, speaking of § 2430, that it ‘ ‘ affords no immunity to a publisher of a newspaper for the publication of a matter libelous per se different from that which it affords to any other person,” and that

State v. Glenn

62 P.3d 921 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 7, 2003

Here, the State has not pointed to any evidence establishing that Glenn intended or in any way anticipated that Eide would disclose his statements to anyone other than another clergy member, namely Wolfson. … Motherwell held that clergy receiving information protected by the clergy/penitent privilege are not subject to the mandatory child abuse reporting requirements in chapter 26.44 RCW, the court also clearly noted that its

Mills v. Orcas Power & Light Co.

56 Wash. 2d 807 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1960

To subject the operator to a lawsuit for every landing without damage, would make a mockery of the law. 8 Thus, Congress has established highways through the air just as it has established water highways in navigable streams … Clearly, an adequate approach way is as necessary a part of an airport as is the ground on which the airstrip, itself, is constructed . . .

State v. J.N.

64 Wash. App. 112 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 3, 1992

and convincingly support the conclusion that a disposition within the range . . . would constitute a manifest injustice, and (b) that the sentence imposed was neither clearly excessive nor clearly too lenient. … J.N. argues that there is no showing that Bernhardt and Kahn are qualified to render an opinion on J.N.'s risk of reofFending.

Eggert v. Department of Employment Security

16 Wash. App. 811 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 30, 1976

The testimony also was sufficient to establish that Vashon Island was in Eggert’s work area. Commuting one way involved approximately 12 miles of driving and a 10-minute ferry ride. … By not looking for a job for which he was qualified, Eggert reduced his chances of finding work. See Jacobs v. Office of Unemployment Compensation & Placement, 27 Wn.2d 641 , 179 P.2d 707 (1947).

Davis v. Microsoft Corp.

70 P.3d 126 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 5, 2003

As a matter of law, Davis failed to establish the second element *134 of his prima facie case—that he "was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question." Hill, 144 Wash.2d at 193 , 23 P.3d 440 . … Davis failed to establish the second element of his prima facie case—that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job in question.

State v. Bjelland

22 Wash. App. 696 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 21, 1979

within the time constraints imposed by CrR 3.3; and (2) if the information is not dismissed, he should be granted a new trial because the trial court prohibited him from presenting material evidence which would tend to establish … Confronted with this development, the trial court granted the witness transactional immunity within the limits authorized by RCW 10.52.090 (CrR 6.14) and directed defense counsel to present an offer of proof, through her

Larson v. City of Bellevue

188 Wash. App. 857 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 2015

Once a firefighter shows that he suffers from a qualifying disease, RCW 51.32.185(1) establishes a presumption that the condition is an occupational disease and imposes on the employer the burden of producing evidence sufficient … Coleman’s testimony because “the witness clearly qualifies as an expert with information that would assist the trier of fact, and that’s based not only on the recitation of the qualifications, but also my review of the portions

Murphy v. City of Spokane

64 Wash. 681 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1911

This sinking fund proposition is then attacked upon the ground that there is no authority in the city to establish or create such a fund. … This rule is well established by the authorities, and has received recognition in this court in Seymour v.

Hanson v. Kittitas Reclamation District

75 Wash. 297 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1913

Clearly, therefore, if the decree is valid, it is conclusive of the questions here suggested. … This clearly did not invalidate the notice.

State Ex Rel. Robinson v. Superior Court

182 Wash. 277 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1935

If it is not an action against the state, then the rule of immunity does not apply. … Clearly we think such a suit, even though brought against its officer, must in effect be a suit against the state.” In State v.

Ettor v. City of Tacoma

57 Wash. 50 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1910

The power to establish grades is incident to its charter, and is implied from the dedication. It was so held in Fletcher v. … The company claimed immunity from damages under its original grant of a right of way, and a subsequent act of the legislature. The state court held with the company.

State v. Forbes

74 Wash. 2d 420 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 12, 1968

It was established that two ex-felons, Edwards and Hammons, had posed as Haney and passed the checks. … such incompetence appears affirmatively on review so clearly as to show that the accused was thereby deprived of a constitutionally fair trial.

Drain v. Wilson

117 Wash. 34 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1921

That they represented not only themselves but all the creditors, known and supposed, is clearly indicated by the form taken in that litigation by which the *39 hidden assets were discovered for the benefit of the whole estate … It is a suit appealing, to the general powers of the superior court sitting in equity for the establishment of a lien upon, or a portion of, a fund created by the valuable services of the appellants through their attorneys

Hotchkiss v. CSK Auto Inc.

918 F. Supp. 2d 1108 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 22, 2013

O’Reilly asserts, as an initial matter, that Realing does not qualify as “an owner, partner, corporate officer, or manager” for purposes of establishing automatic employer liability. Davis v. … It is hard on your immune system. Hotchkiss Dep., ECF No. 87-1, at Tr. 129.

State v. Glenn

115 Wash. App. 540 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 7, 2003

But the evidence does not establish that this policy applied to confessions to clergy. … Motherwell held that clergy receiving information protected by the clergy/penitent privilege are not subject to the mandatory child abuse reporting requirements in chapter 26.44 RCW, the court also clearly noted that its

Gorre v. City of Tacoma

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2015

The legislature clearly drafted RCW 51.32.185(3) to restrict RCW 51.32.185(1)(c)'s cancer presumption, which "shall only apply to" the specific cancers it identifies. … To qualify for benefits, a claimant generally bears the burden of establishing causation between the workplace conditions and the disease.

Smith v. Ferry

43 Wash. 460 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 22, 1906

He qualified as snch and entered upon the discharge of his duties. What he has done since, that time doe's not appear. … On Deeeember 28, 1905, the respondent entered upon the lot and established her residence there, and on the same day made her declaration of homestead, and on the following day duly recorded said declaration.

Snohomish County Fire Prot. Dist. v. Brb

87 P.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 5, 2004

The property owner petition method of annexation has been held not to violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution in Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. 5 v. … Regardless of whether the City takes further action to accept the petition, at that stage there has clearly been a "proposed action."

Kimberly Moehlmann v. Kelly M. Lambert

191 Wash. App. 474 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 1, 2015

Barber’s chart note records that Betty Sue’s immunizations were “up to date.” … The Supreme Court held that the stepfather qualified as a de facto parent but that he failed to meet “the high burden imposed on those seeking third party custody.” 179 Wn.2d at 229 .