Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,602 results
2.30s
Boeing Co. v. Department of Licensing
103 Wash. 2d 581 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1985
While the second and third exemptions focus on the nature of the particular flight, the first exemption clearly exempts fuel used by certificated air carriers as a class. … It was established during the audit and lower court proceedings that a small portion of the fuel Boeing used during the audit period was taxable.
Cited 23 timesPublishedSamuels v. Department of Employment Security
37 Wash. App. 409 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 1984
Following each of these periods, as established by the 1980-81 school calendar, you will have continued employment. … Because she possessed limited education and was hired mainly because of her experience with the Indian community, she argues that it was highly unlikely she would have been qualified to hold a different liaison position.
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Olson, 126 Wash. 2d 315 (1995)Cited 8 timesPublishedCharlton v. Day Island Marina, Inc.
46 Wash. App. 784 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 9, 1987
We doubt that a boathouse qualifies as a "product" under section 402A, given its similarities to other buildings. See footnote 2. … Super. 429 , 302 A.2d 456 (1973), we doubt that the boathouse so qualifies.
Cited 17 timesPublishedViewcrest Condominium Association, Res. v. Brenda L. Robertson, App.
197 Wash. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 27, 2016
Wash. 1994) ("In short, when the legislature has wanted to add exceptions to the homestead exemption, it has done so clearly and directly."). 15 RCW 6.13.070. … Applying the long-established directive to construe homestead provisions liberally, we conclude there is no specific, clear, and direct limitation on a condominium homestead that eliminates the right to possession granted
Cited 3 timesPublishedDobbin v. Pacific Coast Coal Co.
25 Wash. 2d 190 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1946
At the trial, certain facts were established by evidence which was unrebutted and undisputed. … The reason for this rule is clearly shown in 37 C. J.
Cited 10 timesPublishedBlack v. National Merit Insurance
154 Wash. App. 674 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2010
When interpreting a contract our primary goal is to discern the intent of the parties, and such intent must be discovered from viewing the contract as a whole.” 19 “In the absence of anything in the context of a contract clearly … Design, Inc., Profit Sharing Plan, 764 F.2d 827, 833 (11th Cir. 1985) (“It is an established principal that ‘[t]he word “or” is frequently construed to mean “and,” and vice versa, in order to carry out the evident intent
Cited 19 timesPublishedWeyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Ecology
86 Wash. 2d 310 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1976
Appellant appeals from the superior court judgment qualifying the entire cost of Boiler #10 for certification under RCW 82.34. … Respondent cannot do this because that boiler is clearly not being operated for the “primary purpose” of pollution control.
Cited 81 timesPublishedPotts Family Motors, Inc. v. City Of Longview
Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 2020
State, where the Supreme Court held that the qualified personal immunity of parole officers for negligent supervision of parolees does not extend to the State. 127 Wn.2d 434, 445-47, 899 P.2d 1270 (1995). … That decision imported the policy underlying quasi-judicial immunity to the interpretation of a statute granting only a qualified immunity to certain law enforcement officers for actions which are neither judicial nor
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRhea Peralta v. Bradley J. Blakely, M.D.
Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2022
Generally, this evidence is presented by a qualified expert witness. Id. Simply alleging that Dr. Blakley was grossly negligent is not enough. Dr. … While the statute provides limited immunity with regard to “the decision” to discharge, under a strict construction, it does not provide immunity for all treatment decisions beyond the decision to discharge.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished87 Wash. 2d 112 · Washington Supreme Court · May 13, 1976
App. 518 , 301 So.2d 280 (1974) *119 the jury selection commenced with 36 qualified veniremen; 14 were black. … Whether these injuries were so atrocious, aggravated, and harmful as to amount to assault in the second degree was, however, clearly a question of fact.
Cited 23 timesPublishedDeaconess Hospital v. Washington State Highway Commission
66 Wash. 2d 378 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1965
The immunity is absolute, and, when consent is given, it may be qualified or conditional and may specify a particular court in which the permitted actions may be maintained.” State ex rel. Thielicke v. … If it is not an action against the state, then the rule of immunity does not apply.
Cited 57 timesPublishedMatzger v. Arcade Building & Realty Co.
80 Wash. 401 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1914
Oliver, supra, was clearly a case of that kind. … The colloquy between the court and counsel above quoted clearly advised counsel for the appellant that the respondent would rely upon estoppel as establishing a valid lease.
Cited 29 timesPublishedJugum v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp.
646 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 29, 1986
The Court disagrees, for the reasons clearly stated in the Order dated May 27, 1986, and for the reasons stated below. … RCW 30.22.020 explains that one of the purposes of the chapter is to “qualify and simplify the law concerning the respective ownership interests of individuals to funds held on deposit by financial institutions ...
Cited 5 timesPublished169 Wash. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 2012
In so doing, PPG attempts to characterize Fiore’s primary duty as “promoting sales,” which qualifies as an administrative operation exempt from the requirements of the MWA. … These admitted facts clearly demonstrate that Territory Managers do not “exercise discretion and independent judgment” as required in order to meet the administrative employee exemption to the MWA.
Cited 35 timesPublished50 Wash. 327 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1908
They must cause to be opened and worked such roads as are necessary for public convenience, which have been laid out and established according to law; levy such taxes for road and bridge purposes as are by law provided for … Furthermore, the state’s contention would be clearly expressed by the remainder of the sentence had the qualifying phrase *331 been omitted.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2025
No. 1-1 at 5–6.)1 The 8 Court identified that Plaintiff’s claims were likely barred by judicial immunity 9 and were otherwise not clearly stated, and ordered him to file an amended 10 … A 19 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff qualified for IFP status but that his 20 complaint failed to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 7.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2025
No. 1-1 at 5–6.)1 The 8 Court identified that Plaintiff’s claims were likely barred by judicial immunity 9 and were otherwise not clearly stated, and ordered him to file an amended 10 … A 19 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff qualified for IFP status but that his 20 complaint failed to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 7.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownCard v. Tacoma Municipal Court
District Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2025
No. 1-1 at 5–6.)1 The 8 Court identified that Plaintiff’s claims were likely barred by judicial immunity 9 and were otherwise not clearly stated, and ordered him to file an amended 10 … A 19 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff qualified for IFP status but that his 20 complaint failed to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 7.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2025
No. 1-1 at 5–6.)1 The 8 Court identified that Plaintiff’s claims were likely barred by judicial immunity 9 and were otherwise not clearly stated, and ordered him to file an amended 10 … A 19 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff qualified for IFP status but that his 20 complaint failed to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 7.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownCard v. King County Superior Court
District Court, W.D. Washington · May 13, 2025
No. 1-1 at 5–6.)1 The 8 Court identified that Plaintiff’s claims were likely barred by judicial immunity 9 and were otherwise not clearly stated, and ordered him to file an amended 10 … A 19 Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff qualified for IFP status but that his 20 complaint failed to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 7.)
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna