Case law

Schwarzmann v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners

33 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 15, 1982

There must be evidence adequately establishing that the underlying motive for the interferor's breach involved considerations outside the scope of obligations under an existing agreement. Cherberg , at 605. … As for plaintiffs' claim of negligent infliction of emo *405 tional distress, this case is clearly not within the guidelines of the leading Washington cases. In Hunsley v.

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell

208 F. 469 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 10, 1913

I am clearly of the opinion, however, that it will be unwise policy to encourage those Indians who are now farming to remain in their present locations. … Wyman had any authority to designate or establish a reservation at Port Orford for any purpose.

Diaz v. National Car Rental Systems, Inc.

143 Wash. 2d 57 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2001

Liability Insurance or Qualified Self-Insurance An automobile liability policy or qualified self-insurance arrangement provides the Authorized Driver with the minimum limits required by the automobile financial responsibility … The only qualifier is that the renter must sign up for SLI at the time of contract, which Pulliam did.

Gregory v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York

7 Wash. 2d 645 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1941

Gregory of Seattle, had qualified as executor, the brother, George W. Gregory of Moscow, entered a contest of the will, asserting that the bequest to the “nephew George W. … In each, the cause of action was clearly predicated on the contract.

Eidson v. State, Dept. of Licensing

32 P.3d 1039 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 21, 2001

That was clearly stated in the Statement of Charges. The fact that he failed to support the $5,000 adjustment is a fact relating to the issue, not an issue to be litigated. … , taken as established, supports the conclusion that Eidson did not exercise reasonable diligence, discussed below.

State v. Ortiz

119 Wash. 2d 294 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1992

Hardin's testimony established that there had only been one perpetrator and portrayed what had happened after the murder. It also provided a physical description consistent with that of the defendant. … Hardin was clearly qualified to testify. Practical experience is sufficient to qualify a witness as an expert. State v. Smith, 88 Wn.2d 639, 647 , 564 P.2d 1154 (1977).

Lough v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 17, 2021

immunity has been decided, and requesting attorney fees for the “the 16 time spent trying to confer with [Plaintiff] and the time spent drafting this motion.” … immunity.

Paris American Corp. v. McCausland

52 Wash. App. 434 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 6, 1988

In both Olin and Layman , the "qualified refusal" rule was applied in a situation in which the holder of the property was a bailee of the property. … Here, the McCauslands withheld possession of the personal property for their own benefit, and clearly for a period longer than was necessary to determine Paris Beauty Supply's identity.

State v. Ish

150 Wash. App. 775 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 2009

. ¶16 Second, the State sought to establish that in his plea agreement, Otterson promised to testify truthfully. … In Green, the witness testified under an immunity agreement that required the witness to “ ‘testify truthfully’ ” with the stated purpose of “ ‘securing] the true and accurate testimony’ ” of the witness. Green, 119 Wn.

Verdant Health Commission v. Burwell

127 F. Supp. 3d 1116 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 1, 2015

It is now well-established the Medicaid numerator calculation should include the Medicaid eligible population, and the § 1115 population. … But subsequent opinions clearly curtailed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that all low income populations should be counted for reimbursement purposes. In 2008, the D.C.

In re the Personal Restraint of Dutcher

114 Wash. App. 755 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 30, 2002

But the statute clearly contemplates that such decisions will be based on the merits of a release plan, and nowhere offers any authority for dispensing with such plans altogether. … its early release decisions based upon plans proposed by inmates and reviewed by the department, and has (we *766 believe wisely) not authorized any exemption from this process simply because ESRC believes the offender qualifies

Gahagan v. Department of Licensing

59 Wash. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 3, 1990

You further have the right to take one or more tests administered by a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of your choosing and at your own expense. … Grosse, A.C.J., and Webster, J., concur. 1 The court erroneously relied on Bartels to find that the burden was on the State to establish there was no prejudice.

Vonage America, Inc. v. City of Seattle

152 Wash. App. 12 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 6, 2009

Because of the bundled nature of Vonage’s records, it is clearly difficult for the company to provide this information after the service has occurred, but the Code places the burden on the taxpayer to establish the correct … And the hearing examiner here acknowledged, “[I]t is clearly difficult for [Vonage] to provide this information.”

State v. Hehman

90 Wash. 2d 45 · Washington Supreme Court · May 11, 1978

It makes little sense to jail a man who, when he appears before the judge, will be clearly qualified for release without bail. While United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 , 38 L. Ed. 2d 427 , 94 S. … Decisions of the United States Supreme Court establish the minimum rights which may be accorded a defendant and yet comply with the guaranties of the United States Constitution.

Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc., V. Dept. Of Revenue

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 21, 2023

Additionally, administrative rules cannot “expand tax immunity beyond the exemptions provided by statute or required by the state and federal constitutions.” Id. at 229. … No. 57108-1-II property to qualify as a speculative builder.” Id. at 228; see also id. at 228 n.6.

Langfitt v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 15, 2022

The Court also declined to address 19 Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order, limiting discovery to the issue of Edwards’ 20 qualified immunity, pending the amended complaint. … Id. at 9–11. 13 Defendants also renew their motion for a protective order, asking the Court to 14 limit discovery in the case to the issue of qualified immunity until that threshold issue is 15 resolved.

Van Dyke v. Thompson

95 Wash. 2d 726 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1981

this immunity when it amended RCW 26.16.205. … Due process is afforded only by a *739 hearing which is aimed at establishing the validity of the underlying claim. Sniadach v. Family Fin.

In Re Williams' Estate

145 Wash. 19 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1927

The property consisted mostly of a sash and door factory established by Mr. Williams about 1902. From the first, the factory was a profitable business and continued to be such until his death. … His will was admitted, and the persons named therein as executors were appointed as such by the court and qualified. They filed an inventory and appraisement, the latter showing a little less than $300,000.

Immigration Assistance Project of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

717 F. Supp. 1444 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 3, 1989

Second, the court held as irrational the INS’s distinction between applicants with duration of status visa who qualified under the INS’s “passage of time” standard and those who qualified under the “known to the government … Finally, plaintiffs seek to define more clearly the burden of proof for this category of applicants. The court once again refuses to order the INS to adjudicate these applications within three months.

Tacoma News, Inc. v. Cayce

172 Wash. 2d 58 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2011

Following Judge Cayce's ruling on the State's immunity request, the attorney for the State of Washington asked the judge to preside over Pfeiffer's deposition. … Joseph Pfeiffer was clearly not an ordinary witness, the record making it clear that he was a key witness in the case against then-Pierce County Superior Court Judge Michael Hecht.