Case law

State v. Jones

59 Wash. App. 744 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 10, 1990

The well-established rule in Washington is that the trial court's reasons for imposing a sentence outside the standard range must take into account factors other than those which are necessarily considered in determining … In sum, the trial court's reason for imposing an exceptional sentence is supported by the record and not "clearly erroneous". See State v. McAlpin, 108 Wn.2d 458, 462 , 740 P.2d 824 (1987).

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.

James v. Kitsap County

154 Wash. 2d 574 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2005

Therefore the three-year statute of limitations clearly applies to the nearly identical claim for a refund asserted in this action absent an intervening statute changing the rule. … When persons, *596 governments, or other entities unlawfully obtain money from others, I see no reason why they should be able to immunize themselves from liability for their wrongful conduct. Return the money!

Wright v. J. F. Duthie & Co.

118 Wash. 564 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 4, 1922

But the case was clearly one of lost profits on the whole contract. That was the theory on which it was tried. … And further, that, if they find for the respondent, they should allow such an amount “as in your opinion will fairly and justly compensate him for the damages, if any, which has been established by the evidence because of

Jacobsen v. City of Seattle

98 Wash. 2d 668 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1983

The police department determines what qualifies as a rock concert at which the search procedures will be in effect. … While the trial court stated in its memorandum opinion "[t]he record clearly establishes a serious problem and a legitimate basis for the City's concerns", the situations at a rock concert are not comparable to the dangers

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.

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.

Flarity v. Roberts

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 11, 2021

Judgment under Rule 12(c) “is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the 8 face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be solved and that it is entitled to 9 judgment as a matter of law … The Court previously 19 dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Kenneth Roberts with prejudice because they 20 were barred by quasi-judicial immunity. Dkt. 23.

In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Salvesen

94 Wash. 2d 73 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1980

Although he considered those withdrawals to be fees for legal services, he did not maintain sufficient records to establish that fact. … V CONFUSION CAUSED BY KUMBERA The majority apparently concludes the Disciplinary Board qualified its recommendation of disbarment. I disagree. A 7-to-1 vote for disbarment is not qualified in any way!

King v. Hardison-Miller

28 Wash. 2d 921 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1947

Miller qualified and has been acting as such guardian at all times since. … Stat. 1504) cannot operate to immunize the particular transfers here in *946 question against attack at this time and in this manner. . . .

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

State v. Rodriguez

103 Wash. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 14, 2000

There, a witness appeared under a cloak of immunity and testified about her role in the crime before the court, thus clearly implicating her complicity as a principal or accomplice. Here, Mr. … The identity of a party may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Danielson, 37 Wn. App. 469, 472 , 681 P.2d 260 (1984).

City of Hoquiam v. Public Employment Relations Commission

97 Wash. 2d 481 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1982

The Executive Conflict of Interest Act was enacted in 1969 to establish specific rules to cover conflict of interest situations involving state executive employees. … an important and obvious source of commissioners for PERC and other similar boards, agencies and commissions. *490 The result of our accepting the City's assertion would be to cut off an important pool from which to draw qualified

Tombs v. King County

49 Wash. App. 178 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 1987

The issuance of a building permit established the necessary privity between the developer and the County. … Without such reliance, the Tombs fail to establish a claim under the special relationship theory.

Commonwealth v. Roberts

23 Pa. D. & C. 446 · Washington County Court of Quarter Sessions · Apr 13, 1935

courts have laid down and firmly established the following rules, settling the effect of this constitutional provision: 1. … Even if the title should contain a general statement of a subject matter, comprehensive enough to include some particular matter connected therewith, yet if such general statement be followed by qualifying language, clearly

Olson v. King County

71 Wash. 2d 279 · Washington Supreme Court · May 25, 1967

The immunity is now gone in this state; and in this particular case the claims were timely filed. … In such cases, the recovery should not be limited to the specific dollar amount stated in the claim, if the evidence establishes dollar damage in excess of that amount. In Wagner v.

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.

State v. Bello

142 Wash. App. 930 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 4, 2008

. ¶11 It is well established that article I, section 7 provides greater protection of the privacy interest in a vehicle and its contents than does the Fourth Amendment. Parker, 139 Wn.2d at 493-95 . … therefore, not subject to the vehicle exigency exception to the warrant requirement. ¶20 Lopez’s contention—that, because a vehicle subject to a traffic stop may be presumed to be the property of the driver, the vehicle is immune

Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate Ins. Co., Inc.

223 P.3d 1180 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 6, 2010

CPA Claim ¶ 39 But the record clearly establishes that the trial court erred when it granted Kim's motion for summary judgment. … Moreover, the IME belongs to Allstate and clearly qualifies as its own work product. See Harris v.

Brown v. Giger

111 Wash. 2d 76 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 14, 1988

However, a borrower's acquiescence in a scheme to avoid the usury law does not make the transaction qualify for the exemption in RCW 19.52.080. Darwin , at 927-28. This makes sense. … On the contrary, it clearly was his business to find out whether Giger was to receive profit from this venture.