Case law

Lamtec Corp. v. Department of Revenue

170 Wash. 2d 838 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 20, 2011

Ed. 2d 430 (1964) (“ ‘a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption’ ” (quoting Norton Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 340 U.S. 534, 537 , 71 S. Ct. 377 , 95 L. Ed. 517 (1951))). … The Department suggests that this case is not a good vehicle for considering whether physical presence is required because, in its view, Lamtec clearly maintains such a presence and, alternatively, that the physical presence

State Ex Rel. Kempf v. Superior Court

151 Wash. 289 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1929

He qualified by filing bond and oath, and on June 28, 1922, letters were issued to him as trustee. … It is therefore earnestly insisted that it clearly appears herein that the petitioner is endeavoring to probate the estate of her husband in Spokane county under a state of facts which bring her clearly within the provisions

Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate Insurance

153 Wash. App. 339 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 24, 2009

Allstate’s obligation to cover the costs of Kim’s emergency room visit is an open question best decided at trial on remand. *361 CPA Claim f 39 But the record clearly establishes that the trial court erred when it granted … Moreover, the IME belongs to Allstate and clearly qualifies as its own work product. See Harris v. Drake, 116 Wn.

Diamaco, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

983 P.2d 707 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 12, 1999

Instead, the court there explained that the limitations on coverage arose from the policy's stated exclusions, not the insuring clause: The qualifying phrase, "to which this insurance applies" underscores the basic notion … The language and structure of the policies in this case clearly adopt the first approach.

Protect The Peninsula's Future v. Haaland

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2024

On this record, the proposed oyster farm qualifies as a “new or 9 expanded use” of the refuge. The Service makes no argument to the contrary. … It argues that even if the complaint 4 were properly pled, the letter does not qualify as a final agency action because “no legal 5 consequences flow” from it.

King County Department of Development & Environmental Services v. King County

167 Wash. App. 561 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 2, 2012

DDES contends the hearing examiner’s determination that Spencer and Shear established their use of the property was a valid nonconforming use is both “ ‘an erroneous interpretation of the law’ ” and a “ ‘clearly erroneous … App. at 164 ). “ ‘The use of property must actually be established prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance to qualify as a nonconforming use thereafter.’ ” Id. (quoting Anderson v.

State v. Pang

132 Wash. 2d 852 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1997

(Criminal Law Code, Article 250 with qualifying clauses from Article 258 - Arson followed by death). … Clearly, in the note requesting extradition, it says that, having committed the crime of Arson, during this fire, the collapsing of one of the slabs caused the death of four firemen.

Dellen Wood Products, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries

179 Wash. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 25, 2014

Ed. 2d 415 (2006)). ¶42 A claimant alleging deprivation of due process must first establish a legitimate claim of entitlement. Haberman v. Wash. Pub. … To qualify as a self-insured employer, an employer must first establish that it has sufficient financial ability to pay workers’ compensation benefits and assessments under the Act. RCW 51.14.020(1).

Wright v. Mead School Dist. No. 354

944 P.2d 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 2, 1997

An appellate court reviews factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, and issues of law de novo. Id. at 109 , 720 P.2d 793 . … The court further stated that to find the conduct was not grounds for dismissal would operate to immunize an individual who managed to hide his past conduct prior to hiring. Id.

Schmidt v. Old Union Stockyards Co.

58 Wash. 2d 478 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1961

. § 203 ) to qualify and be licensed by the Secretary of Agriculture to engage in the selling of livestock in a licensed stockyard. … It is likewise clear that adequate provisions have been established to insure judicial review of the acts of the Secretary.

Franks & Son, Inc. v. State

136 Wash. 2d 737 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1998

The request was based on Plaintiffs' claim that, should they ultimately prevail on the merits, the State might assert an immunity defense to any refund claim. … Clearly, regulation of these and other carriers was a proper exercise of the State's police power.

Riley et ux v. Spokane County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 19, 2023

Absolute immunity is 4 “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Butler v. San Diego 5 Dist. … Absent a showing of facts clearly in violation 7 of established law, immunity stands. Id. at 964. 8 D.

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 is clearly the case here. WSU is a major public university that provides on-campus housing for thousands of residents.

Ellsworth

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 17, 2026

6 immunity; and, in addition, plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law. … immunity issue raised by 28 defendants.

Ferris v. Blumhardt

48 Wash. 2d 395 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1956

We have repeatedly held that the findings of a trial court, entered upon conflicting evidence, will be approved on appeal unless the evidence clearly preponderates against them. Carroll Constr. Co. v. … The Witzigs’ offer requested an act in return for the promise to devise, and thus contemplated a unilateral contract. 1 Restatement, Contracts, 65, § 59, states: “Except as this rule is qualified by §§ 45, 63, 72, an acceptance

Larson v. Department of Labor & Industries

24 Wash. 2d 461 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1946

The burden is upon the claimant to establish all essential things.” At this point the jury was excused, and Mr. Griffin asked the following question: “Mr. … The doctor, after being qualified as an expert, testified to the history of this case as given to him by appellant on November 12th.

State v. Groth

163 Wash. App. 548 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 12, 2011

and bars patterned shoes was with Diana when she was stabbed but still ambulatory, that only one person made those prints, and that the prints were consistent with Groth’s footwear. ¶51 Groth argues the evidence points as clearly … Va. 1999) (failure to follow “established procedures” that were “clear and unambiguous” is probative evidence of bad faith but does not “ipso facto establish bad faith”); United States v. Montgomery, 676 F.

State v. Whelchel

115 Wash. 2d 708 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1990

evidence of guilt is unavailable to establish the reliability that we find absent in this case. … The trial testimony of Nancy and Beth, the two eyewitnesses to the killing, clearly established the defendant as the murderer. These two young women testified to essentially the same series of events.

Kershaw Sunnyside Ranches, Inc. v. Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n

156 Wash. 2d 253 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 2006

and expressly limits or qualifies the interest conveyed.” … Thus, Brown established that, generally, when the granting document uses the term “right of way” as a limitation or to define the purpose of the grant, it operates to “clearly and expressly limit [ ] or qualif[y] the interest

Davis v. Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2022

“Government officials performing discretionary functions 12 enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate 13 ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In analyzing a qualified immunity defense, courts are “permitted 1 to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified 2 immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the