Case law

Ewalan v. Schreiber

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 16, 2024

immunity. … To avoid confusing the jury, the court 10 also intends to remove any and all references to qualified immunity from the preliminary 11 instructions. (See 4/11/24 Order at App’x A.)

Warner v. Regent Assisted Living

132 Wash. App. 126 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 20, 2006

The VAS does not require expert testimony to establish “neglect,” “pain and suffering,” or resulting damages. … considered whether Man-tooth’s statement qualified as an excited utterance.

Bunger v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

196 F. Supp. 3d 1175 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 20, 2016

[h]e reports significant fatigue, which in my opinion is medically unexplained[,] [t]he diagnosis of Lyme disease has not been established by CDC criteria[,] ... … The Court clearly stated that the burden of proof was on the Plaintiff, Mr. Bunger. Order at 18, ¶ 3.

Standard Oil Co. v. Graves

94 Wash. 291 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1917

Pie had established a local facility in Chicago for his own benefit and while, through its employment, the grain was there at rest, there was no reason why it should not be included with his other property within the state … We have quoted thus copiously from that opinion, because it seems to fully and clearly set forth the views of the court, and reviews the previous holdings. In General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U.

Thomas P. Collins v. Juergens Chiropractic, Pllc

13 Wash. App. 2d 782 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2020

Bragman’s testimony clearly established a genuine issue of fact regarding the standard of care and Dr. Juergens’s breach of that standard of care. Dr. … While the second step of this determination of materiality clearly does not require expert testimony, the first step almost as clearly does.

Harvey v. Department of Employment Security

53 Wash. App. 333 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 22, 1988

The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded Camlu met its burden to establish the discharge was the result of misconduct and found no evidence Ms. … Harvey's refusal to fold the linens qualifies as misconduct is a question of law, to which we apply the error of law standard.

Parke v. City of Seattle

5 Wash. 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1892

Joseph), as to show clearly that in deciding that case the court did not intend in any way to qualify the general rule theretofore established in the state, that for damages such as those in the case at bar the city was in … This rule may have been qualified by subsequent *31 decisions in that state.

State v. Adler

16 Wash. App. 459 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 30, 1976

Washington has recognized that even though the right of privacy is enshrined as a constitutional doctrine, the dimensions of that right are not clearly defined. Eddy v. Moore, 5 Wn. … Eddy traced the evolution of the right of privacy *462 and noted that other jurisdictions recognize an “equitable right of privacy” 1 but stop short of establishing a constitutional right of privacy of an individual to be

Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Ass'n v. Boeing Co.

92 Wash. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 1998

. . . yield to what the legislature has established as the law.” … Thus, the qualified employees should have been compensated for the time spent at orientation at the agreed-upon rate as contained in their employment agreement because orientation was work and the qualified plaintiffs were

Dillion Smelser, Derrick Smelser, V Jeanne Paul, Ronald Smelser

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 4, 2016

Appellants sought to exclude it because it was being offered only to establish fault on the part of the children. No fault was allocated to the children. … But, the jury clearly rejected that theory and found her negligent.

Blake v. Federal Way Cycle Center

40 Wash. App. 302 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 13, 1985

The events occurring after this lawsuit commenced, such as the "foul-up" involved in the delivery of the new cycle, also do not qualify as "unfair" acts. … The defendants' failure to establish a joint account is also clearly not an "unfair" act.

State v. Meade

129 Wash. App. 918 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 11, 2005

Violation of the terms of his probation qualifies as an aggravating factor supporting a manifest injustice determination. See Rhodes, 92 Wn.2d at 761 . ¶11 4. … The Blakely Court showed no intention, as Meade suggests, to *926 overrule its well-established holding that the right to a jury-does not attach to the traditional juvenile justice system. See McKeiver v.

Doscher v. Timberland Regional Library

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 28, 2022

A federal court is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until 6 plaintiff establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 7 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. … Id. 15 “[T]he assertion of an affirmative defense may be considered properly on a motion to dismiss 16 where the allegations in the complaint suffice to establish the defense.” Sams v. Yahoo!

Parkes v. Burkhart

101 Wash. 659 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1918

The agreement is clearly one relating to real property, and since it cannot be proved, there is no way in which the breach or failure can be established. … The allowance of the claim is its establishment as a charge of indebtedness against the estate.

Board of Directors of Quincy Valley Irrigation District v. Scott

79 Wash. 434 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1914

But while the petition may have been subject to a motion to make it more definite and certain for want of a more positive allegation in this regard, it is clearly sufficient as against a general demurrer. … The requirement is that the board of directors shall make the estimate, and when they in good faith make such an estimate, and their estimate is approved by the qualified electors of the district, all is done that is necessary

Adair v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

64 Wash. 2d 539 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1964

The trial court held the evidence failed to establish contributory negligence and entered judgment for the employee for the full amount of his damages. … In the instant case there is clearly ample evidentiary basis under the federal standard to support all facets of the jury verdict, including that of contributory negligence.

King County v. Hanson Investment Co.

34 Wash. 2d 112 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 11, 1949

deed, the record copy of which contains the following language: “The grantor herein Hanson Investment Company for the consideration of One & 00/100 Dollars and also of benefits to accrue to them by reason of laying out and establishing … If not virtually conceded, it is at least clearly deducible, from what does appear in this record, that the present action was instituted because of the circumstances, and for the reasons, above stated.

Dryden Commercial Club v. Department of Public Works

142 Wash. 317 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1927

Ordinarily, a railway company may be expected through self interest to establish and maintain them at any point where the proper circumstances combine to make such action profitable. … These observations make it apparent that only a consideration of all the evidence by a tribunal qualified through experience to determine these questions can properly protect the interests of the public as well as the railroad

Wild Fish Conservancy v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 13, 2022

The WFC asks us to find that WDFW clearly erred by not establishing a “no action” or “no operations” scenario as its environmental baseline. … The discovery of one fish with sea lice does not refute WDFW’s findings based on scientific data nor does it establish the agency’s conclusion was clearly erroneous.

State v. Meade

120 P.3d 975 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 11, 2005

Violation of the terms of his probation qualifies as an aggravating factor supporting a manifest injustice determination. See Rhodes, 92 Wash.2d at 761 , 600 P.2d 1264 . ¶ 11 4. … The Blakely Court showed no intention, as Meade suggests, to overrule its well-established holding that the right to a jury does not attach to the traditional juvenile justice system. See McKeiver v.