Case law

Rothman v. NO. AM. LIFE & CAS. CO.

7 Wash. App. 453 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 2, 1972

. *456 [1] In the trial of a case, any circumstance is admissible which reasonably tends to establish the theory of the party offering it, or to explain, qualify, or disprove the testimony of his adversary. Robertson v. … Depriving the jury of the evidentiary value of the check so they may evaluate its weight along with all the other evidence was clearly erroneous. Judgment reversed and remanded for new trial.

Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

91 Wash. App. 722 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 30, 1998

Bridgestone’s alleged failure to warn of known dangers in the foreseeable use of the tires clearly occurred in the conduct of trade. … Hiner failed to establish cause in fact.

State v. Gefeller

76 Wash. 2d 449 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1969

To say that in a great many criminal cases conviction depends on identifying the accused and establishing his presence at the scene of the crime states but a truism. … Rules of evidence are designed to aid in establishing the truth.

Estate of Torres v. Kennewick School District No 17

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2024

Qualified Immunity 7 “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold 8 public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the … clearly established at the time of the alleged 15 misconduct.”

Olsen v. Hoag

128 Wash. 8 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1924

Dickman, 98 Wash. 584 , 168 Pac. 465 , that an oral agreement to devise a ranch in consideration of the care, services and nursing during the life of the decedent, who was ill and required much help, is clearly established … From the facts and the law as established in this state, we are convinced that appellant is entitled to establish the trust set up in her complaint.

Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County

83 P.3d 433 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 24, 2004

Rather the plan, together with the zoning code, specifically allows asphalt production if the project qualifies for a special use permit. III. … The language in Lutheran Day Care is clearly dicta. The Supreme Court did not decide that hearing examiners could be liable for denying a land use permit.

Lew v. Seattle School District No. 1

47 Wash. App. 575 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 18, 1987

basis of RCW 28A.88.010, the judgment can be upheld on the basis of appellant's failure to allege in his complaint that the STA breached its duty of fair representation. 2 In general, where a collective bargaining agreement establishes … Therefore, since respondent clearly raised the defense of exhaustion below, 3 and since appellant nowhere argued or alleged either that the STA had breached any duty or that appellant qualified under an exception to the exhaustion

Woods v. Kittitas County

162 Wash. 2d 597 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2007

RCW 36.70A.290(2) (emphasis added). *610 ¶20 GMHBs do not have jurisdiction to decide challenges to site-specific land use decisions because site-specific land use decisions do not qualify as comprehensive plans or development … Second, she argued the comprehensive plan does not provide for the R-3 zone classification in rural areas and the R-3 zone cannot qualify as rural based on rulings of the three GMHBs, which require five acre densities in

Kent Ex Rel. Gillespie v. Derwinski

790 F. Supp. 1032 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 19, 1991

DISCUSSION OF LAW Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 791 requires that a plaintiff prove three elements in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination: (1) plaintiff is a handi *1039 capped person within the meaning of … Otherwise Qualified The Ninth Circuit has adopted a two prong test to determine if a handicapped person is “otherwise qualified” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 791 : (1) Is the worker presently qualified to perform the

State v. Verharen

136 Wash. 2d 888 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1998

The losing candidate claimed the victor was not a qualified candidate because the victor was allegedly not a county resident. … Fiske, 48 Wn.2d 69, 72 , 290 P.2d 725 (1955) (a residence once established is presumed to continue, and the burden is upon him who asserts a change from a residence once it is established); Polk v.

Wilson v. Poor

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 13, 2023

immunity, and that Wilson was not entitled to 20 damages. … But she concluded there were questions of fact about whether 5 Poor threatened Wilson with violence in retaliation for Wilson threatening to file a 6 grievance, and that Poor was not entitled to qualified immunity on

State Ex Rel. Sternoff v. SUP'R CT. FOR KING CTY.

52 Wash. 2d 282 · Washington Supreme Court · May 1, 1958

This would be true, even though the law is clearly established that condemnation for use as a public highway is a public use within the requirements of RCW Chapter 47.52. … The state’s evidence revealed, and the diagram clearly shows, that these tracts are not necessary for actual highway construction or maintenance.

Gorman v. Pierce County

176 Wash. App. 63 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 13, 2013

Accordingly, we cannot overturn the jury’s verdict unless it is clearly unsupported by substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that, if believed, would support the verdict. … “Abrogation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not create duties where none existed before. It merely permitted suits against governmental entities that were previously immune from suit.”

Grays Harbor Energy Llc v. Grays Harbor County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 23, 2013

A taxpayer bears the burden of establishing a tax exemption, and we must construe tax exemptions narrowly. Bowie v. … Considered in its context,the new construction rule clearly was never intended to exempt personal property from taxation.

Martin v. Department of Licensing

175 Wash. App. 9 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 30, 2013

You have the right to additional tests administered by any qualified person of your own choosing. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 42 (capitalization omitted). … We disagree. ¶31 The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of article I, section 12 of the Washington State Constitution guarantee equal protection of the laws.

State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. County of Pierce

65 Wash. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 16, 1992

The first element was properly established. … The third element was properly established.

State v. Arndt

194 Wash. 2d 784 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 5, 2019

In placing these limitations on Mann's testimony,thejudge clearly stated that her rationale was based on Mann's failure to follow well established scientific methodology: THE COURT: It is not a problem that … Does that qualify as an expert opinion? MR.

Bledsoe v. Ferry County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 30, 2020

In 2 resolving qualified immunity claims, the court must decide (1) whether the 3 defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the identified 4 constitutional right was clearly established at … Bledsoe’s constitutional rights that were clearly established by law. 12 Therefore, the individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.

Carroll v. Biden

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 3, 2022

Nev. 1995) (“No RICO statute waives the sovereign immunity of the United States or 6 its agencies.”), aff’d sub nom. McMillan v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 87 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 7 1996). Because Mr. … An action to establish the 20 President’s RICO liability for unspecified environmental violations likely does not 21 qualify as a civil rights action. Even if it did, Mr.

Molloy v. City of Bellevue

71 Wash. App. 382 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 1993

This duty entails informing the employee of job openings for which he might be qualified. Dean , at 637. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a handicapped employee must prove (1) that he or she is handicapped, (2) that he or she was qualified to fill vacant positions, and (3) that the employer failed to take affirmative