Case law

State Of Washington, V. Randy S. Karn

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 4, 2021

Megan Spohr, who evaluated N.K. and Ro.K., testified that the malnutrition they experienced generally leads to poor immunity which tends to place children at a higher risk for infection and potential death. Dr. … excessive or clearly too lenient.

Jeanette Mears, App/cr-resp v. Bethel School District No 403, Resp/cr-app

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 12, 2014

The jury' s findings in this case do not clearly contradict themselves, and substantial evidence in the record supports them. … Br. of Appellant at 77 ( arguing that the Flovent testimony " issue clearly not only involves an erroneous admission of evidence, but also clearly involves misconduct of counsel" and citing CR 59( a)( 8), concerning

State of Washington v. Cardona

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 24, 2020

The individual student aid grants authorized 3 by Section 18004 of the CARES Act clearly qualify as a grant or “postsecondary 4 education … or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are 5 provided … The plain text of 6 PRWORA allows for distribution of certain in-kind assistance to non-qualified 7 aliens, but Congress has previously amended PRWORA itself when authorizing 8 direct payments to non-qualified aliens

Detention Of Derwin Leron Pasley

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 21, 2023

He testified that K.R. was able to communicate clearly and understand complex terms, and that he demonstrated life skills typical of a young adult. Dr. … Pasley cites Anderson and Froats to support his argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish he committed an ROA.

Marrazzo v. Orino

194 Wash. 364 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1938

It may be established by facts and circumstances; but, as above stated, these facts and circumstances must be inconsistent with an honest purpose and reasonably consistent only with the intent to defraud.” Dart v. … At the conclusion of the trial, the court, as set out in its memorandum opinion, very clearly demonstrates the reasons that actuated appellant to sign the contract with Orino: “The trial court is the judge of the credibility

Wills v. City of Dupont Police Department

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 25, 2020

Plaintiffs, however, were clearly not aware of this rule. … claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege that: (1) the 7 conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) the 8 conduct deprived a person of a right, privilege, or immunity

Bayley Construction v. Great American E & S Insurance

980 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 1, 2013

The insurer is relieved of its duty to defend only if the alleged claim is “clearly not covered by the policy.” VanPort Homes, 58 P.3d at 282 . … The IFCA The IFCA establishes a cause of action for “[a] ny first party claimant to a policy of insurance who is unreasonably denied a claim for coverage.” RCW 48.30.015(1).

State v. Petterson

198 Wash. App. 673 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 21, 2017

However, our Supreme Court has clearly stated that if the superior court’s power to set a sentence carried with it the power to modify the sentence, it would undermine the finality in rendered judgments. … . & Health Servs., 122 Wn.2d 738, 750-51 , 863 P.2d 535 (1993) (An equitable estoppel claim requires establishing five elements, including injury.).

State v. Slattum

173 Wash. App. 640 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 19, 2013

. ¶5 The court’s written findings establish in relevant part: 8. … The State argues that the statutes discussed above — qualifying the term “imprisonment” with language specifying location — “clearly signal!

In Re Custody Of: S.m. And A.m., John Mcculla, Sr. v. Carey Mcculla

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 1, 2019

Because it is clearly contrary to the legislature’s intent, we decline to interpret RCW 26.09.260(1) in the manner that Milton suggests. … Thus, Milton bears the burden of establishing that she is a fit parent.

Jahr v. United States

259 F. Supp. 3d 1158 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 2, 2017

Where the exception applies, sovereign immunity is restored, and the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider th.e plaintiffs claims under the FTCA. Lesoeur v. … This CAS entry does not establish a mandatory, non-discretionary requirement that Borchardt discharge Aguigui from the Army.

Eisenbach v. Schneider

140 Wash. App. 641 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 10, 2007

Accordingly, most of the findings are verities on appeal. 7 Estate Plan ¶12 In May 1979, Marvin and Martha Eisenbach established a trust indenture. … The trustee also allocated approximately $1.6 million to the latter subshare (the B-2 trust or Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) trust).

Lewis County v. State

178 Wash. App. 431 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 2013

We agree with ■ the trial court that the County presented neither type of qualifying issue here. A. … Because the County must establish all four elements to demonstrate a justiciable controversy the failure to establish any one element is fatal to its claim.

Teck Metals, Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's

735 F. Supp. 2d 1231 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 10, 2010

Contrary to the contention of LMI, Canron’s holding does not “clearly support[ ] application of British Columbia law here.” … The LMI policies at issue here clearly insure multiple principal locations of risk, indeed provide worldwide coverage.

State v. Sullivan

65 Wash. 2d 47 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1964

See: 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 75 (1961); Henry v. United States (1959), 361 U.S. 98 ; United States v. Boston (1964), 330 F. (2d) 937, 939. … I cannot agree that the search of appellant is valid under the rules of the previously cited cases or that it qualifies as a search without a warrant, as discussed in Preston v.

Oliver v. Dupee

16 Wash. 634 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1897

against the attempted purchase by the respondents; that appellant had no legal claim to the land in controversy; that the land belonged to the third class, and must be sold to the first applicant; and that appellant was not a qualified … But the application there was for a writ of mandamus, and in order to grant such a writ the rights of the relator must be clearly established, while in this case the matter came before *641 the superior court by way of an

State v. Barnett

139 Wash. 2d 462 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1999

Although Barnett initially resisted the police dog and was bitten as a result, a police dog is clearly not a “person.” … Clearly first degree burglary based on unarmed assault is a crime against a person.

In re the Personal Restraint of Yates

177 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2013

Yates’s petition, however, clearly alleges only a facial challenge to the process of death qualification. … The second and third of these statements clearly do not establish a closure. With respect to the second statement, evidence of absence is not evidence of exclusion.

State v. Johnson

179 Wash. 2d 534 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2014

. ¶17 In the context of former RCW 46.20.342(l)(c)(iv), the reference to former RCW 46.20.289 is clearly intended to serve the purpose of adding clarity and definition to the terms preceding it. Cf. Cuyler v. … Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 578 , 238 P.3d 487 (2010) (“Related to this [last antecedent] rule is the corollary principle that ‘the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply

Chadwick v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

33 Wash. App. 297 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 30, 1982

Chadwick's failure to comply with the terms of probation and was clearly contemplated by the parties at the time of contracting. He cannot now invalidate the agreement because NWA enforced it. Mr. … He further argues the attorney was not qualified as a custodian of the records to testify regarding those files. Therefore, he *304 argues the motion should fail. We disagree.