Case law

Westcott v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

862 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 20, 2012

Indeed, the fixed annual interest rate of 6.875% that is set forth clearly on the first page of the Initial Interest Note is not unusual, let alone shocking to the conscience. … The Note itself, while dense, is written clearly and is hardly more than two pages long.

State v. Sanchez

42 Wash. App. 225 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 3, 1985

RCW 46.20.308(1) requires that an arresting officer shall inform the arrestee that he has a right to an additional alcohol test by a qualified person of his choosing. … Further, he argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to establish causation of the accident by intoxication.

City of Tacoma v. WILLIAM ROGERS COMPANY

60 P.3d 79 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 8, 2003

In these cases, the taxpayer clearly had no liability for the payments. Evergreen relies very heavily upon a third case decided by this court interpreting Rule 111, Rho Co. v. … But Rule 111 exempts money that otherwise would have qualified as gross income.

Ballard Square Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Dynasty Construction Co.

158 Wash. 2d 603 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 9, 2006

. ¶23 The general rule, that as to preexisting actions a new limitations period runs from the date of its enactment, has an important qualifier. … However, again there is qualifier. ¶26 In 1000 Virginia Limited Partnership v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wn.2d 566 , 146 P.3d 423 (2006) (consolidated with Lombardi v.

Morgan v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.

274 F. Supp. 3d 1176 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 5, 2017

However, Hartford argues that the IGF-1 Z score is insufficient to establish a “causal link between objective medical findings ... and ‘Disability.’ ” Id. at 3. … Specifically, he stated that, despite, the lack of physical limitations, “[Morgan] clearly has fatigue and ...

Baker v. Hale

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 24, 2023

21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 1 It appears that the amended answer added a defense of qualified … immunity which had been omitted from the original answer.

Merino v. State

179 Wash. App. 889 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 11, 2014

I, § 15, his disability compensation qualifies as an “estate,” which cannot be forfeited based on a felony conviction. … Because of the remedial purpose of such statutes ... a forfeiture or waiver of [disability] pension rights should be found only where clearly intended by the parties.’ ” Newlun, 53 Wn.

Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 22, 2022

Maverick concedes this interest although it contests 11 the Tribe qualifies as an indispensable party. (Id. at 14.) … Moreover, notwithstanding the equity versus 6 jurisdictional distinction, the Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss invokes tribal sovereign immunity and 7 district courts have stayed discovery and further proceedings where immunity

State v. Lewis

46 Wash. 2d 438 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1955

The defendant was thus deprived of the benefit of the important qualifying term ‘continue’ in the instruction to the jury.” People v. Devine, 185 Mich. 50 , 151 N. … Clearly, that would not have constituted bigamy under the statute because he did not continue to cohabit with her.

Parrish v. West Coast Hotel Co.

185 Wash. 581 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1936

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, … The court said: “The statute here questioned deals with a subject clearly within the scope of the police power.

Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation

108 Wash. 2d 38 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2000

Such a burden would be insurmountable since trade secrets frequently contain elements that by themselves may be in the public domain but together qualify as trade secrets. See Servo Corp. of Am. v. General Elec. … The decision to award these damages is discretionary with the trial court and the *62 amount of award will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. See Sperry Rand Corp. v.

Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

106 Wash. 2d 391 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1986

The Executive Vice-President has overall responsibility for establishing salary and compensation policy. Mr. … Goldsmith's opinion was clearly established. His opinion did not rely on conjecture and speculation.

State v. Phillips

59 Wash. 252 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1910

The party first assaulted, whether the appellant or the deceased, was clearly acting in self-defense. … committed with a deadly weap *257 on must retreat or give warning, before taking the life of his assailant in self-defense, it imposed upon him a burden which the law does not sanction, and the fact that the instruction was qualified

Rose v. Department of Labor & Industries

57 Wash. App. 751 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 4, 1990

The Board concluded that the value of room and board received by Rose as a prisoner did not qualify as "other consideration," as that term is defined in RCW 51.08.178, but was merely an incident to his confinement and, therefore … Consequently, it is immaterial whether the $1 per day was given as an incentive or other form of compensation, because it clearly constituted consideration for the work performed.

Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 v. Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau

87 Wash. 2d 887 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1976

The trustees’ standing may be established upon an alternative ground. … The administrative remedy of RCW 48.19.310 and RCW 48.04 “establishes clearly defined machinery for the submission, evaluation and resolution of complaints by aggrieved parties. . . .

In Re the Personal Restraint of Carrier

173 Wash. 2d 791 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2012

Indeed, the legislature’s power to establish what qualifies as crime and to fix the penalties and punishments for crime is “ ‘ “plenary and subject only to constitutional provisions.” ’ ” Id. (quoting State v. … Carrier’s 2004 prosecution is clearly a “subsequent prosecution [ ] for any other offense . . . .” Id. at 813.

In re the Detention of West

171 Wash. 2d 383 · Washington Supreme Court · May 5, 2011

This immunity for opinion work product is nearly absolute. Pappas v. Holloway, 114 Wn.2d 198, 211-12 , 787 P.2d 30 (1990). 2. … Rather than having interrogatories and depositions as a matter of right, a requesting party would have to establish a substantial need for the materials and undue hardship.

In re the Detention of Durbin

160 Wash. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 2011

that Durbin met the criteria for commitment as an SVP. f 8 On an ex parte finding of probable cause, the State transferred Durbin to the Thurston County jail and, on September 30, 2004, Durbin stipulated that the petition established … Thus, the legislature clearly intended that the 2009 amendments apply to individuals in Durbin’s position, i.e., individuals awaiting commitment under chapter 71.09 RCW and confined in a secure facility such as the SCC.

In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Krogh

85 Wash. 2d 462 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1975

Finally, after the Watergate indictments were underway, his codirector Young had obtained immunity in exchange for his testimony, and others were engaging in plea bargaining, he came to realize that the term “national security … Nevertheless, the respondent’s attorney suggests that the findings of the hearing panel establish beyond dispute his fitness to continue in the practice of law.

Crawford v. Milner

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 29, 2025

To prevail on this claim a 7 “plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive.” Id. (internal 8 citations omitted). … First, Plaintiff fails to show she was qualified for the unit. Plaintiff herself 21 concedes “Income Verification past and current” was required. (Dkt. No. 3.)