Case law

State v. Lesnick

84 Wash. 2d 940 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1975

Failure to clothe these chattels with the same immunity is, I think, both conspicuous and noteworthy. … The massive quantum of judicial precedent relating to *957 search and seizure, much of it conflicting and irreconcilable, should be returned to its earlier established constitutional line of departure in accordance with the

Rhoades v. Department of Labor & Industries

143 Wash. App. 832 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 22, 2008

Auman clearly applied RCW 51.32.080, the same statute at issue here. 116 Finally, Ms. Rhoades argues that neither Auman nor Messer 3 addressed the gender discrimination issue raised here. … The ERA’s broad protection goes beyond that of the equal protection clause of the federal constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution. State v.

In Re Detention of Durbin

248 P.3d 124 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 8, 2011

that Durbin met the criteria for commitment as an SVP. ¶ 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.

Northwest Chemurgy Securities Co. v. Chelan County

38 Wash. 2d 87 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1951

Before a court of equity will grant recovery of taxes paid pursuant to an overassessment, it must clearly appear that the assessment is so palpably exorbitant and excessive as to amount to constructive fraud. … He was presented by appellant as a qualified witness as to market value, and was conceded by respondent to be so qualified.

Ritter v. Board of Commissioners

96 Wash. 2d 503 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1981

Ct. 840 (1934); Roth , at 577 ("clearly implied promise of continued employment" is a property interest). … Clearly these charges "might seriously damage [Ritter's] standing and associations in his community." Roth , at 573.

Heavens v. King County Rural Library District

66 Wash. 2d 558 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 8, 1965

The issue in this case is cléar cut: If utilized for the establishment of a library, where does the local improvement district concept, device or mechanism fall on the legal spectrum of permissible and nonpermissible special … On the one end of the span are the clearly permissible uses of special assessments to cover the cost of installing roads, sewers, et cetera. There is no argument that those improvements add valué to the adjacent land.

Vogt v. Hovander

27 Wash. App. 168 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 9, 1980

The Boettcher case was an action to establish an oral contract to devise wherein the plaintiff called the estate's coexecutor as an adverse witness. … [T]he book here offered was not admissible because it was clearly not a shopbook. . . . . . .

Clark County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

161 Wash. App. 204 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 2011

Lewis County established “Soccer Fields” as a short form for 142 Wn.2d 543 . Lewis County, 157 Wn.2d at 497 . … The Growth Board found that these processes contained no clearly erroneous errors.

Serres v. Department of Retirement Systems

163 Wash. App. 569 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 12, 2011

The settlement agreement established separate distribution funds for each subclass. … .” ¶33 Because the foregoing uncontested facts clearly demonstrate that the individual settlement awards provided retroactive compensation for services provided by county employees, the awards are “compensation earnable”

Schafer v. Las Vegas Hilton (In Re Video Depot, Ltd.)

186 B.R. 126 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 29, 1995

Second, the minimum level of control necessary to qualify as initial transferee is the right to put the money to one’s own purpose. … Clearly the debtor and Airbrush were not conduits, because the debtor had full control over the funds.

Shively v. Garage Employees Local Union No. 44

6 Wash. 2d 560 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1940

The fourteenth amendment cannot be invoked as a mantle of protection under which the wrongdoer can plead immunity from the judicial processes of our courts. … Justice Murphy, has clearly set forth the scope of the rule which was being laid down.

Brutsche v. City of Kent

164 Wash. 2d 664 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2008

Stated another way, a warrant immunizes the police from liability for trespass but only where the police do no more damage to the property than is absolutely necessary for a thorough search. … For example, if the police acquire land for a police station, which ultimately serves the ends of law enforcement, such is clearly an exercise of the power of eminent domain, requiring just compensation.

Wagner v. County of Spokane

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 9, 2020

Whitehead, 580 2 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009). 3 The individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity 4 on all claims. … To determine the applicability of 5 qualified immunity, the court must decide (1) whether the defendant’s conduct 6 violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the identified constitutional right was 7 clearly

Johnson v. City of Seattle

385 F. Supp. 2d 1091 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 16, 2005

In light of this holding, the Court need not decide the issues of deliberate indifference or qualified immunity. D. Negligence Claim. … But DeShaney has clearly foreclosed these claims.”).

Dyal v. Fire Companies Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

23 Wash. 2d 515 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1945

A corollary to that principle is that the damages recoverable must be such as are the direct, natural, and proximate consequences of the wrongful act or omission, and such as are established with reasonable certainty. … That court was therefore eminently better qualified than are we to determine the character, extent, and effect of the injuries and the length of time the appellants had actually lost as the result of those injuries.

Clark County Public Utility District No. 1 v. Department of Revenue

153 Wash. App. 737 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 15, 2009

Conversely, the Districts maintain that the basic service charges do not qualify as “gross revenue” under the statute. … The Last Antecedent Rule ¶37 The last antecedent rule of statutory construction provides that unless a contrary intent appears in the statute, a qualifying phrase refers to the last antecedent, and a comma before the qualifying

Lee v. Rite Aid Corp.

917 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 11, 2013

Clearly dissatisfied with Plaintiffs attendance record in her new position, Rite Aid re-assigned Plaintiff to the float team on December 29, 2009. … A rational jury could find that this qualifies as an “aggravating circumstance” for purposes of establishing intolerable working conditions. See Allstot, 116 Wash.App. at 433 , 65 P.3d 696 .

Buddy Q, LLC v. City of Yakima

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 24, 2023

The City argued it was immune from liability under the flood control immunity statute, as well as the emergency and public duty doctrines. … City of Yakima In 1967, the legislature passed a statute waiving Washington’s sovereign immunity to tort suits. RCW 4.96.010.

State v. Sherman

98 Wash. 2d 53 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1982

The term "indicating" does initially establish an objective inquiry. Generally speaking, a wanton and willful disregard will only be established by circumstantial evidence of the way a defendant drives. … This does not mean the above language establishes solely an objective element of the crime.

United States v. Fiander

401 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Nov 21, 2005

Does the CCTA abrogate Defendant’s right to travel as established by Article III of the Yakama Treaty of 1855? … “Even if ... the Treaty was not intended to retain the Yakamas’ right to travel to preserve their traditional system of trade and exchange, the Treaty was clearly intended to reserve the Yaka-mas’ right to travel on the public