Case law

Trummel v. Mitchell

131 P.3d 305 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 30, 2006

The evidence relied upon by the trial court clearly establishes that Mitchell's petition is based on the harassing conduct exhibited by Trummel to Mitchell and Council House staff and residents, not based on complaints to … Id. at 9. [11] RCW 4.24.510 provides in relevant part: "Communication to government agency or self-regulatory organization — Immunity from civil liability."

Hensen v. Peter

95 Wash. 628 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1917

To sustain such a principle, would be but holding out inducement to litigants to commence and protract, by artifice or other unauthorized means, vexatious litigation, with a view of finding immunity ultimately under the statute … In that case the court said : “We are clearly of opinion that it must be held that the lien of the judgment was in life at the time of the issuing of the third execution, in October, 1863, upon the ground that the time from

White Eagle v. Michaelis

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2024

Id. 17 Finally, the R&R explains the stringent “deliberate indifference standard” 18 necessary to establish an Eighth Amendment violation and concludes that both Holdway 19 and Duncan are entitled to qualified … immunity given White Eagle’s failure to submit 20 evidence that the defendants personally participated in the allegations.

Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 12, 2015

We will overturn an agency's factual findings only ifthey are clearly erroneous. !d. at 594. … That statute allows for attorney fees when a qualified party prevails in judicial review of an agency action. Here, Cornelius does not prevail.

Morris v. International Yogurt Co.

107 Wash. 2d 314 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1986

The Morrises argue that a franchisor must be required to comply strictly with all of FIPA's exemption *319 requirements in order to qualify for an exemption. … The evidence also clearly shows that this particular yogurt mix was a fundamental ingredient contributing to the special quality of the final product.

Pierce County v. State

144 Wash. App. 783 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 28, 2008

It should not be allowed to benefit from this act by hiding behind the cloak of sovereign immunity. … Under RAP 10.3(g), we review only issues set forth in an assigned error or clearly disclosed as an associated issue.

Savlesky v. Washington School for the Deaf

139 Wash. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 14, 2006

Clearly, TRI payments may qualify as “salary” for the purposes of the pay parity statute. … That rule provides that qualifying words and phrases refer to the language immediately preceding the qualifier, unless a contrary intention appears in the statute.

Cavell v. Hughes

29 Wash. App. 536 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 12, 1981

The record shows clearly that defendant did not proceed in good faith after signing the earnest money agreement. … As owner of the house, plaintiff would have a number of options, among them, seeking membership herself or selling the house to someone who could qualify for membership.

State v. Sieyes

225 P.3d 995 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 18, 2010

For the purposes of this case, it is enough that the state constitutional right to bear arms is clearly an individual one. III. … See Michael Anthony Lawrence, Second Amendment Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses, 72 Mo.

Quinault Indian Nation v. City of Hoquiam

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.

Bach v. Sarich

74 Wash. 2d 575 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1968

Clearly, defendants show no prejudice which comes within the requirements of this statute. … Nor are riparian owners who derive their title from the United States somehow immune from the changing impact of these general state rules. Joy v. St. Louis, 201 U. S. 332, 342 .

State v. Buckner

74 Wash. App. 889 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 14, 1994

too lenient or clearly too excessive. … Buckner clearly committed a sex crime.

Mildes v. Shriners Hospitals For Children

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2024

5 For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions 6 of the immune … such individual holds or desires. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). 1 immunocompromised and substantially limit one or more major life activities, 2 including the operation of major bodily functions, such as functions of the immune

State v. Jones

57 Wash. 2d 701 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1961

Even where the death penalty has been imposed, if the claimed errors were clearly established, a reversal of the conviction and the removal of the status of convicted felon might conceivably make the prosecution of an appeal … It appearing to this court that the appellant is at this time not competent to proceed with his appeal, all proceed *705 ings herein are stayed until his competency to so proceed is restored, or someone appointed and qualified

State Ex Rel. Standard Optical Co. v. Superior Court

17 Wash. 2d 323 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1943

The court said: “To own and manage property is a natural right, and one which may be restricted only for reasons of public policy, clearly discernible. … This case also establishes that a corporation can hire a physician. I concur in the majority opinion in so far as it applies to the advertising. This is governed by Rem. Rev. Stat. (Sup.), § 10152, subd. 11 and 15.

Pierce v. Frace

2 Wash. 81 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1891

That a policy that congress had, and since has, taken such pains to establish and carry out, should be left at the mercy of such inferior and remote officers, does not seem reasonable. … State of Arkansas, 9 How. 314 ,. is a still stronger one and, were it not qualified by the statement just made, might well conclude our inquiry; for Justice McLean, in the course of his opinion, says that the findings of

City of Seattle v. State

103 Wash. 2d 663 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1985

If the City wishes to annex territory, it is constrained by the procedures established by the State. … Our interpretations of the state privileges and immunities clause have followed the federal interpretation of the equal protection clause.

State v. Johnson

49 Wash. App. 432 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 12, 1987

I Between April 23 and April 26, 1985, a series of four robberies was committed at business establishments in the Seattle area. … First, the identification of the defendant was clearly the principal issue at trial.

In Re Riddell

157 P.3d 888 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 8, 2007

The trial court found that the trust's purpose was "to provide for the education, support, maintenance, and medical care of the beneficiaries" and that a modification would only "permit[] the family to immunize itself financially … They clearly intended to establish a trust to provide for their grandchildren's general support, not solely for extraordinary and unanticipated medical bills. ¶ 23 We remand to the trial court to reconsider this matter and

State v. Wallis

50 Wash. 2d 350 · Washington Supreme Court · May 23, 1957

by independent evidence, and of such a character as clearly to *354 turn the scale and overcome the oath of the defendant and the legal presumption of his innocence. … “That he has read the foregoing statements and makes the same freely and voluntarily, without duress, compulsion, offer of reward or immunity and states that the same is true.” 3 Washington State Constitution, Art.