Case law

W. G. Platts, Inc. v. Platts

73 Wash. 2d 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1968

That Charles and Hazel Platts appeared at the trial, but contacted my office, and Hazel Platts qualified her statement, and stated to me that she would not want to testify for fear that if she did, she would place the defendant … This same immunity applies to statements made preliminary to testifying. In 70 C.J.S.

Pacific Coast Adjustment Co. v. Reese

189 Wash. 347 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1937

Appellants contend that the special privileges and immunities provision of Art. … If appellants’ contention is to be sustained, it must be found that the proviso creates distinctions between wage earners and other classes which are clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, inequitable and unjust.

Metz

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 24, 2026

That said, the Court considers them for the limited purpose of 19 establishing two undisputed facts—that Metz was charged and convicted of … However, because the decision whether to prosecute is protected by 13 absolute rather than qualified immunity, the prosecutor’s state of mind when 14 making the decision to prosecute is irrelevant to this inquiry.

Kerr-Belmark Construction Co. v. City Council of Marysville

36 Wash. App. 370 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 9, 1984

In 1977, the City of Marysville established a Sewer Utility Service Area for utility extensions to properties located outside the city limits. … Marysville erred in excluding Kerr-Belmark's property while including less qualified property.

Wilson v. Poor

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 3, 2023

immunity. … Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 4 Neither party objects to Judge Fricke’s conclusions on qualified immunity, and the 5 Court agrees with her recommendation on that issue.

Hector Martinez & Jolayne Houtz, V. Washington State University

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 21, 2025

Further, the court explained that the Lystedt law gave volunteer health care providers a “limited immunity,” which “recognizes the need for protection against liability, but simultaneously recognizes that the immunity should … See Volk, 187 Wn.2d at 254, 256. 37 No. 83853-9-I/38 No Washington court has clearly defined the boundaries of what amounts to a definite, established, and continuing

Hagan & Van Camp, P.S. v. Kassler Escrow, Inc.

96 Wash. 2d 443 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1981

This is clearly counter to prior case law. Great Western, at 54; Washington Ass'n of Realtors , at 699. … We have clearly held that it is the nature and character of the service rendered rather than the fact of compensation for it that governs. Washington State Bar Ass'n v.

Magdaleno Gamboa, et ux v. John M. Clark, et ux

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 25, 2014

No Washington decision has ever examined the scope ofunobjected-to use that is "otherwise explained" and therefore immune from the shifting presumption. … But the qualifier is reasonably read as contemplating exceptions like the exception for vacant land that was relevant in Northwest Cities.

Wilson v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

85 Wash. 2d 78 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1975

In this case, the first element is clearly established since Westinghouse originally represented that plaintiff’s benefits would be $788.28 per month for 2 years and thereafter $650.78 per month, only to subsequently retract … The second element is likewise clearly established since the plaintiff, on the faith of the accuracy of the representations, elected to accept the early retirement benefits and elected not to pursue other options for employment

Osborne Constr. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

356 F. Supp. 3d 1085 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 20, 2018

Even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Zurich-and therefore crediting its assertion that it did not receive the contract with the September 2017 letter-the record clearly establishes that Zurich was in receipt … The SIR endorsement also clearly states that "payments by others, including ... additional insureds ... do not serve to satisfy" Alside's SIR. ( Id. at 18.)

Fischnaller v. Thurston County

21 Wash. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 8, 1978

Another analogy may be found in the right of the Secretary of State to refuse to accept articles of incorporation where the proposed name clearly conflicts with a name already being used by an existing corporation where that … As such, their responsibilities can, in a large part, be discharged by following established laws and procedures.

William Dickson Co. v. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency

81 Wash. App. 403 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 19, 1996

"By explicitly requiring [the agency] to adopt separate standards for air quality and emissions, the Legislature clearly intended to give [it] the power to regulate emissions that do not by themselves constitute air pollution … Also, the Company’s failure to appoint a qualified asbestos worker to the demolition site is evidence supporting causation.

State v. Carpenter

166 Wash. 478 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1932

Instruction No. 33, reading as follows, supplements and qualifies instruction No. 29, and directs the attention of the jury to the exception in homicide cases as to the general rule of the jury’s province in assessing the … reason of insanity, which has been filed by the defendants and each *486 of them, in this case, you are advised that thé defense of insanity if established and proven is admissible and good under the laws of this state, but

Chang v. Vanderwielen

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 12, 2022

immunity. … Qualified immunity: 12 Gurevich also asserts her entitlement to qualified immunity in relation to all of Plaintiff’s 13 claims.

State ex rel. Sampson v. Superior Court

71 Wash. 484 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1913

This is clearly pointed out in State ex rel. Mullen v. Doherty, 16 Wash. 382 , 47 Pac. 958 , 58 Am. … , the establishment of such a board was not a necessary prerequisite to the election of the three trustees, and that want of notice of the election did not nullify the election.

State Ex Rel. Washington Etc. Co. v. Murray

181 Wash. 27 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1935

These unusual words must have been used either as descriptive or to qualify. … And so, to give the words "engaged in intrastate business in this state" any meaning whatever, they must be treated as qualifying what immediately follows; and thus treated, the word "only" was clearly intended and the clause

Moore v. Brownfield

10 Wash. 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1894

Some such assertion was made at the time by counsel for plaintiffs, but the defendant so qualified his acquiescence therein that he was not thereby deprived of the right to rely upon all the facts pleaded which he could prove … record upon this appeal does not fully disclose all that may have had binding force upon the defendant in reference to this question, and we call attention to it now in order that at the next trial the matter may be more clearly

State v. Evans

177 Wash. 2d 186 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 11, 2013

This means that we will interpret an ambiguous penal statute adversely to the defendant only if statutory construction “clearly establishes” that the legislature intended such an interpretation. … established by statutory construction or, if there is no such clearly established interpretation, then whichever reasonable and justifiable interpretation is most favorable to the defendant.

O'HALLORAN v. University of Washington

679 F. Supp. 997 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 25, 1988

Moreover, she would only be screened if she were to qualify for post-season competition. … a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Hogue v. Port of Seattle

54 Wash. 2d 799 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1959

“On the other hand, legislative conclusions based on findings of fact are not immune from judicial review where they are arbitrary and unwarranted. 16 C. J. S., Constitutional Law, § 151(3), p. 764. . . . … The act created the state reclamation board with certain specified powers, including the power to lease or sell farms to qualified applicants under the conditions and limitations provided therein.