Case law

State v. Gonzales-Morales

138 Wash. 2d 374 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1999

Under RCW 2.43.080, “[a]ll language interpreters serving in a legal proceeding, whether or not certified or qualified, shall abide by a code of ethics established by supreme court rule.” *380 General Rule (GR) 11.1 recites … The purpose of this Code of Conduct is to establish and maintain high standards of conduct to preserve the integrity and independence of the adjudicative system.

Molesky v. Walter

931 F. Supp. 1506 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 7, 1996

As discussed above, mental health evaluations promote legitimate penological objectives which clearly outweigh any individual right to privacy. See Turner v. … CONCLUSION In light of the rather clear absence of any issue of material fact on the merits of plaintiffs constitutional claims, it is unnecessary to address defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity from damages.

Bower v. Bunker Hill Co.

114 F.R.D. 587 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 4, 1986

The class is clearly identifiable and thus the first requirement has been met. The next question is whether the named plaintiffs are members of the proposed class. … I find that the plaintiffs have established the existence of common issues of law and fact.

Gorman v. Garlock, Inc.

155 Wash. 2d 198 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2005

. ¶9 To qualify for coverage under the LHWCA, a worker must satisfy a “2-tiered test.” Lindquist v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 36 Wn. App. 646, 652 , 677 P.2d 1134 , review denied, 102 Wn.2d 1001 (1984). … This court has recognized that RCW 51.24.020 was enacted to ensure that “employers who deliberately injure[] their employees [will] not enjoy the immunity from suits,” which the WIIA provides. Birklid v.

Carson v. Fine

123 Wash. 2d 206 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1994

The court reasoned that once a patient files a complaint placing in issue the nature and quality of medical treatment, however, he or she waives the qualified right to privacy implicit in the Hippocratic Oath. … As can be seen from this excerpt from Jackson , the focus of these rules clearly is upon the evidence, not upon the witness seeking to offer it.

Gerrick & Gerrick Co. v. Llewellyn Iron Works

105 Wash. 98 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1919

In the year 1908, it qualified itself to do business in the state of "Washington by filing its articles of incorporation, paying the annual corporation license fees, fixing its principal place of business in the state at … Clearly, we think the service was insufficient under the general statute relating to service upon foreign corporations, found in Bern. Code, § 226. .

State v. Monson

53 Wash. App. 854 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 17, 1989

Clearly, "hearsay contents" (italicized above) refers to the victim's narrative account, contained in the records, and not to the records themselves. … Indeed, a close reading of White discloses it did not purport to establish this "rule”.

Kessack v. Washington State Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 7, 2021

Qualified Immunity 17 Defendants assert CCO Webb is entitled to qualified immunity. … If 7 the answer to either inquiry is “no,” then the defendant is entitled to qualified 8 immunity and may not be held personally liable. Glenn v.

Beck v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 20, 2021

Plain meaning is established in 9 context of the statutory scheme, and if the statute remains ambiguous, the Court may 10 “turn to statutory construction, relevant case law, and legislative history to determine 11 … The insured failed to counter the insurer’s immunity argument, and the 6 court concluded that even if he had not, the investigation clearly reflected the authority’s 7 well-supported position, so the immunity statute

In re the Personal Restraint of Morris

176 Wash. 2d 157 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2012

In Wise and Paumier , we clearly state that a trial court’s in-chambers questioning of potential jurors is structural error. … The defense was able to clearly establish that little police investigation occurred without the admission of expert testimony highlighting what should have been done.

Ewing v. City of Sedro Woolley

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 19, 2025

If this argument represents an attempt 7 to establish that these Defendants were not acting in their judicial capacities—and 8 are thus not immune—the Court is not persuaded. See Conklin v. … For example, even “a conspiracy between judge and prosecutor to 6 predetermine the outcome of judicial proceedings, while clearly improper, does not 7 pierce the immunity extended to judges and prosecutors.”

State v. Mitchell

117 Wash. 2d 521 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1991

They qualified as statements against interest under ER 804(b)(3). … Therefore, he has not established error by the trial court in refusing to allow impeachment of the witnesses by their "juvenile records".

In Re Detention of Jones

149 Wash. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2009

to interpreting the "best interests" determination, the Bergen court also held that the "adequate community safety" determination involves examining the residence identified in an LRA: "[A]dequate community safety" ... clearly … But RCW 71.09.350(3) provides an exception for an expert who is not providing treatment: Nothing in this section prohibits a qualified expert from examining or evaluating a sexually violent predator who has been conditionally

Harris v. City of Kent

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 9, 2021

and (2) the unlawfulness of 13 their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … A right is “clearly established” when existing precedent places the “statutory or 16 constitutional question beyond debate” such that every reasonable officer would 17 understand that the conduct violated that right.

Arthur West v. Tesc Board Of Trustees

414 P.3d 614 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 27, 2018

With the appellate court standing in the shoes of the trial court, 4 49120-6-II the party seeking to prevent disclosure bears the burden of establishing that an exemption … What FERPA “Requires” West’s primary argument is that FERPA cannot qualify as an “other statute” because it fails to “clearly or expressly require anything.” Appellant’s Br. at 14.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Haley Congressional Committee

654 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 24, 1987

Haley has clearly indicated that he has no plans or intent to ever run for public office again. The defendants, as close friends and/or relatives of Mr. … set aside an agency’s action, findings, and conclusions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

State v. Hamilton

24 Wash. App. 927 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1979

The State put on little testimony to contradict that of the defense, although it did establish that Mr. … Is it to be based on a percentage of the sign's surface area clearly devoted to advertising? If, so, what percentage will qualify?

Watson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 26, 2026

a mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court to the extent it is 14 frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 15 relief from a defendant who is immune … To establish a violation of Title II, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she is a 20 qualified individual with a disability; (2) she was excluded from participation in or otherwise 21 discriminated against with regard to

State v. Ollivier

178 Wash. 2d 813 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2013

Balancing the Factors ¶66 Balancing the Barker factors clearly weighs against the defendant. … Qualifying Information Sufficient To Establish Probable Cause ¶72 The trial court determined that when the false information was omitted, there was sufficient qualifying information in the affidavit to establish probable

State v. Zuanich

92 Wash. 2d 61 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1979

We believe the statute establishes standards of guilt, at least as definite as those which withstood the same constitutional challenge in People v. … There may well be other activities which could qualify as "hard core" a it pertains to sexual conduct.