Case law

State v. Garcia-Salgado

170 Wash. 2d 176 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2010

However, “while the determination of historical facts relevant to the establishment of probable cause is subject to the abuse of discretion standard, the legal determination of whether qualifying information as a whole amounts … It is the State’s burden to establish that an exception to the warrant requirement has been met. Garvin, 166 Wn.2d at 250 . The State has not established an exception in this case.

Department of Ecology v. City of Kirkland

84 Wash. 2d 25 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1974

statement declaring that the board was unable to render any decision or to enter any orders since four members could not concur under RCW 90.58.170: A shorelines hearings board sitting as a quasi judicial body is hereby established … As such, it in effect determined the action or proceeding and fixed a legal relationship between the parties, thus rendering that decision “ripe for review” and fully qualifying it as a “final decision” under RCW 34.04.130

Payne v. Sunnyside Community Hospital

78 Wash. App. 34 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 1, 1995

Payne additional time "to provide facts establishing a practice [by the Hospital] of using progressive discipline . . ., known by [her] and relied upon by [her]”. … The disclaimers clearly provide "cause” is not a requisite for discharge.

Wilder v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 5, 2021

To the extent plaintiff is asserting claims against judicial officers, “[i]t has long been 20 established that judges are absolutely immune from … Plaintiff is hereby 17 ORDERED to file on or before June 1, 2021, an amended complaint which clearly and concisely 18

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Gooley

196 Wash. 357 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1938

This rule is well established, and has been repeatedly followed by this court. The doctrine that a judgment, void on its face, may be attacked without any showing of merits is equally well established. … the other judgment must be shown by evidence de hors the record, but in law1 both judgments are void, and it is difficult to understand why the filing of a false affidavit or return should render a judgment based thereon immune

Taylor v. City of Ballard

24 Wash. 191 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1901

But, in addition to the authorities, which almost universally hold misstatements by counsel will not work a reversal of a judgment unless it clearly appears that the statement was prejudicial, we are satisfied from an investigation … All the cases, of course, hold that the corporation is not required to so construct streets or walks as to secure absolute immunity from danger to people who travel upon them; and this is the question which is generally discussed

Smith v. Skone & Connors Produce, Inc.

26 P.3d 981 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 12, 2001

Smith did not sign the statements nor any other document signifying final settlement, but neither did he object to the clearly final terms of the account. … Smith contends the parties established a $65 per ton packing charge in their two previous years of agreements.

Gilmartin v. Stevens Investment Co.

43 Wash. 2d 289 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 21, 1953

Clearly, in that event, defendant would have a reason to complain. … Also, it seems irrelevant that the court ruled that the experts were qualified to express an opinion.

State v. Schelin

147 Wash. 2d 562 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2002

Meyers, The Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States, 1 Mich. L. Rev. 286 , 290-94 (1903). Equally clear is that the scope of this individual right is qualified by textual exceptions. … The evidence establishes no such thing.

Montecito Estate, LLC v. Douglas Joseph Himsl

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 22, 2013

immunity. … It is difficult for a party to establish a negative and that party has no ability to establish what actions opposing counsel took to investigate a case.

Richards v. Healthcare Resources Group, Inc.

131 F. Supp. 3d 1063 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Sep 16, 2015

She establishes *1072 a dispute of fact as to whether she was qualified for the position, alleging that she was trained insufficiently but that her performance nevertheless was improving measurably at the time of her termination … This theory of negligence is not clearly described in the complaint, See ECF No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 67-70.

Wells v. Whatcom County Water Dist. No. 10

19 P.3d 453 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 5, 2001

First, the information Wells and WDF rely on to argue that the District must prepare an SEIS does not qualify as "new information" under the SEPA regulations. … While his comment about compensation was unnecessary, it was made in the context of a CUP criterion and clearly did not influence his evaluation of that factor.

Qualey v. Pierce County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 28, 2025

Rather, Defendant only requests bifurcation so that he may reraise 23 qualified immunity at trial. This is insufficient to meet even the basic requirements of Rule 24 42(b). … The Court also notes that Defendant’s motion does not address the Ninth Circuit’s 1 requirements for how qualified immunity may be presented as a trial defense.

Lenhoff v. Birch Bay Real Estate, Inc.

22 Wash. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 4, 1978

Turner established her dwelling upon the lot in question. The structure consists of two modules brought to the site and placed on a foundation, and includes a basement constructed at the site. … Turner also argued that the phrase ”but that all construction must be of new construction," (italics ours) is a qualifying phrase limiting the buildings or structures which may not be moved in or set upon the property, and

Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 15, 2013

State Dep 't of Ecology & Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 87703-3 prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. … AR 1 (Ecology Order 7178, at 2-3). 12 Just as Atkins would likely qualify as an expert for purposes of a trial due to his training and experience, Lemire also would likely qualify as an expert in farming, ranching, and

Habich v. Habich

44 Wash. 2d 195 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1954

The children have become well established in respondent’s home, where, except for visits with appellant; they have lived since September, 1951. They seem to be happy where they are. … And as to what is an age of discretion in this regard (note the qualifying words), the authorities hold that the test is whether the child is sufficiently mature to have intelligent views and wishes on the subject.

Diego Diego v. Meta

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 25, 2021

complaints and must 2 dismiss them if, “at any time,” a complaint is determined to be frivolous, malicious, fails 3 to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 4 who is immune … Yet, despite this high level of control, 22 Defendants still qualify these workers as independent contractors. (Id. at 6.) Because of 1 this classification, Mr.

Engelking v. City of Spokane

59 Wash. 446 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 1, 1910

The iveight of the raft, the heavy rope, the current of the stream, and the proximity of the falls, made the superintendence of a qualified person am imperative necessity. In Anderson v. Globe Nav. … Here, clearly, the danger causing the injury was not one ordinarily incident to the employment.

State v. Bertrand

165 Wash. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 8, 2011

Bertrand having failed to identify how the challenged instruction implicates a constitutional right, she fails to meet the first part of the test to qualify for the RAP 2.5(a)(3) exception. … Here, in contrast with the disputed facts in Bashaw, the evidence establishing distance was uncontroverted; moreover, it was supported by competent physical evidence and testimonial evidence, not mere speculation, as was

State v. Reed

6 P.3d 43 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 7, 2000

Indeed, our recognition of a surveillance location privilege is built upon the established informer's privilege, Roviaro v. … The public policy arguments advanced by the State in support of establishing a "surveillance location privilege" are not persuasive.