Case law

Schumacher v. Williams

107 Wash. App. 793 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 6, 2001

It is not necessary for these beneficiaries to establish financial dependence on the deceased. … App. at 819 (scope of statute protects only beneficiaries clearly contemplated by the statute).

State v. Bernhard

108 Wash. 2d 527 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1987

Ordinarily we would remand this case to the trial court to determine whether Teen Challenge qualifies as a special detention facility. … Nordby, 106 Wn.2d 514, 517 , 723 P.2d 1117 (1986). *543 First, we apply a clearly erroneous standard to determine whether the sentencing judge's reasons are supported by the record. Nordby , at 518.

State v. Cardenas

129 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1996

The latter conclusion does not, however, establish that Cardenas knew or should have known of Michel’s vulnerability. … Clearly, nothing like that happened here. Neither can it be said that Cardenas "should have known” of Michel’s vulnerability as a pedestrian.

Lich v. Strohm

134 Wash. 490 · Washington Supreme Court · May 15, 1925

The record further discloses that, after the entry of the decree, which followed the findings of fact and appointed a temporary receiver, the receiver duly qualified and obtained possession of the crop, it being actually … that case the relief was accorded upon the express ground that no deficiency judgment was obtainable, and that fact is coupled with the inadequacy of the security and the nonpayment of taxes in stating the rule, the court clearly

El Coba Co. Dormitories, Inc. v. Franklin County Public Utility District

8 Wash. App. 28 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 6, 1972

The time for such filing was extended from *32 90 days, established for second-class cities, to a 1-year limitation for those “districts” which are specifically enumerated in RCW 53.52.010. … Section 1 thereof specifically states the legislative intent to waive governmental immunity for tort claims against any state government agency or its subdivisions.

Lakoduk v. Cruger

48 Wash. 2d 642 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1956

The fact sought to be established was that certain words were spoken and not the truth or falsity of those words. … Rogers, supra, it was held prejudicial error to instruct on section 454 without qualifying instructions explaining the restricted meaning to be ascribed to the ‘due regard’ language of that section.

Johnson v. Mobile Crane Co.

1 Wash. App. 642 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 31, 1969

These were cases where the facts clearly supported the conclusion that plaintiffs’ knowledge of the dangers resulting in their injuries equaled that of the defendants. … The records contained opinions, upon which other persons qualified to make the same record might have differed, and did not relate solely to an act, condition or event. These matters were properly excluded. Young v.

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. Lee

205 P.3d 979 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 27, 2009

The fact that these problems were not clearly "manifest" at the time of the industrial injury does not eliminate second injury fund relief because his disabilities were permanent and manifested repeatedly over a period of … The disability must have clearly detracted from an individual's ability to engage in the ordinary pursuits of life.

Colton & Cheryl Behr v. Dr. Christopher G. Anderson

491 P.3d 189 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 8, 2021

“The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce an affidavit from a qualified expert witness that alleges specific facts establishing a cause of action.” Id. This court reviews a summary judgment ruling de novo. … does not clearly reflect such determination.

Frank v. McClanahan

146 Wash. App. 309 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 5, 2008

There is some evidence that Kenneth and Catherine established the Foundation for the tax benefits. … This proposition is clearly supported by a leading ademption case, Buder v.

Kuest v. Regent Assisted Living, Inc.

111 Wash. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 25, 2002

person from outside the protected class. 9 The employee alleging discrimination must establish specific and material facts to support each element of his or her prima facie case. 10 If a prima facie case is established, … The terms (or offer) in the employment contract clearly excluded the policy as part of the original employment contract, thus anticipating its existence.

Buell v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

14 Wash. App. 742 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 8, 1976

When the facts of a given case warrant, the “odd lot” doctrine should be spelled out clearly. … The law of the case, as enunciated by the trial court’s unchallenged instruction, establishes that Mrs.

State v. Spencer

128 Wash. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 20, 2005

Spencer claims that the legislature expressed its intent clearly when it provided that an assaultive violation of a no-contact order should be elevated to a class C felony. … But Spencer would not have qualified for the greater earned early-release time even without the finding of domestic violence.

Johnson v. City of Tacoma

41 Wash. 51 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1905

The personal injury case was clearly not one for opinion evidence, for the reason that the basis of the opinion had no definite standard. … It is further urged, however, that the witnesses were not shown to be qualified to give opinions. We think the record shows sufficient qualification to permit them to testify.

McKee v. American Home Products Corp.

113 Wash. 2d 701 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1989

To the contrary, an expert, if otherwise qualified, need not be licensed to practice his profession in the state of Washington in order to qualify as an expert witness. Walker v. … Those recommendations were clearly stated by the manufacturer on labels which the pharmacists, at least, were aware of.

Puget Sound Financial, L.L.C. v. Unisearch, Inc.

146 Wash. 2d 428 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

We need not determine the impact of the first invoice to decide that, after 48 transactions, a course of dealing was clearly established. … The court then determined that 47 prior transactions were sufficient to establish a course of dealing. Id.

Skansi v. Novak

84 Wash. 39 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1915

On cross-examination, he testified that the house he built to live in was on the bank, fifty or sixty feet above the shore line, and qualified his former answers as follows: “Q. (by Mr. Nichols). … This case is clearly ruled by the case of McNaught-Collins Improvement Co. v. May, supra, and the other decisions cited in connection with it. To hold otherwise would *47 be to return to the doctrine of Johnson v.

Espinda v. Hohenberg

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 21, 2024

and 2 immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … to immunity under the Eleventh 10 Amendment.

In Re The Marriage Of: Gabriel Y. Lee v. Carol Ann Kennard

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 16, 2013

Qualified Domestic Relations Order Kennard argues that the trial court erred by refusing to enter the QDRO as presented by her attorney. … The language of RCW 26.09.140 clearly makes an award of fees and costs discretionary.

State v. McGary

122 Wash. App. 308 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 7, 2004

Additionally, the first, third, and fourth degree criminal mistreatment statutes clearly require that the State prove withholding of any of the basic necessities of life. … A corollary to that rule is that “the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents *314 instead of only the immediately preceding one.”