Case law

Christensen v. Terrell

51 Wash. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 3, 1988

However, under HEAPA review, the court in addition to *625 the arbitrary and capricious standard applies the clearly erroneous standard, i.e., after a review of the entire record, does the court have a definite and firm conviction … Manual states: Before an appointment is terminated because of the discontinuance of a program of instruction, the institution will make an effort to transfer the affected faculty member to a position for which he or she is qualified

Dow v. Dempsey

21 Wash. 86 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 22, 1899

The receiver duly qualified, and the respondent, upon the order of the court, turned the attached property over to him. … Upon these facts the question arises, has the plaintiff established a cause of action in claim and delivery against the defendants ?

Wilder v. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 12, 2021

To the extent plaintiff is asserting claims against judicial officers, “[i]t has long been 24 established that judges are absolutely immune from … Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on or before April 13, 2021, an amended 25 complaint which clearly and concisely identifies the acts of which

F.L.B. v. Lynch

180 F. Supp. 3d 811 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 15, 2016

that the plaintiff, ás a “non-admitted” alien, had substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, but held that the individual officers involved in the “purely invidious discrimination” at issue were entitled to qualified … immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time they engaged in the constitutional violations. 373 F.3d at 970-77.

Detention of Petersen v. State

42 P.3d 952 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 21, 2002

In its order it did not restate that the burden to establish probable cause rested on Thorell. Instead, it concluded "the state has established the absence of probable cause to believe that Mr. … Thorell In Thorell's case the trial court clearly erred when, in its 1999 order, it stated the burden of proof at the probable cause hearing rested on Thorell.

State Ex Rel. Lawler v. Grant

178 Wash. 61 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1934

The two appointees qualified in February, since which time they have served as such judges. On April 3,1934, they filed in the superior court for King county joint applications for a writ of mandamus to compel George A. … Clearly, in our opinion, it would be available for the new judges, just as it is already, because it is a fund for that purpose.

Horton v. Board of Education of Methodist Protestant Church

32 Wash. 2d 99 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1948

In due course, all of the trustees duly qualified and acted as such, but all of them, excepting plaintiff, are deceased, and plaintiff is now the duly appointed, qualified, and acting sole surviving trustee under the will … In the last-cited case, the general rules relative, to the cy pres doctrine, with which we are here in accord, are set out very clearly and at some length.

Grondal v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 19, 2021

for damages. 8 b) Claims for Declaratory Relief 9 Wapato Heritage also argues that the Colville Tribes clearly waived its 10 sovereign immunity in the 2014 Casino Replacement … A Tribe does not 2 clearly and unequivocally express its intent to waive its immunity from suit by 3 simply removing a case from state to federal court. See Bodi v.

Estate of Torres v. Kennewick School District No 17

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 2, 2023

RCW 18.71.210 2 Paramedics in Washington are granted qualified immunity by statute for acts 3 and omissions performed during emergency medical services. … The 2 court explained that plaintiff’s interpretation of RCW 18.71.210 “would lead to 3 absurd results that would defeat qualified immunity and permit liability even where 4 the first responders acted in good faith

Fraternal Order of Eagles v. GRAND AERIE

27 P.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2001

Clearly, the series of nouns ("institute, club, or place") are modified by this adjective clause and "fraternal organizations" is not. … By this sentence construction we can clearly understand what the common idea is that connects those three entities together-a nature that may be "distinctly private."

In RE McNEAR v. Rhay

65 Wash. 2d 530 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1965

Such proof must be made by clear and positive evidence, and it must be established that there was no coercion actual or implied. … It would not and could not support a general exploratory search or seizure. 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities, Ch.

Gerow v. Washington State Gambling Commission

181 Wash. App. 229 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 13, 2014

The EAJA also states that “[i]f two or more qualified parties join in an action, the award in total shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars.” 11 RCW 4.84.350(2). … RCW 4.84.350(2), however, clearly bars this type of double recovery.

ALASKA NAT. INS. CO. v. Bryan

104 P.3d 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 21, 2004

, Harold Bryan does not qualify as an insured under the Business Auto Policy." … Alaska National clearly reserved the right to challenge coverage.

Bjornstad v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2020

All redactions 15 must be clearly marked and identified. … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 12 protection, the producing party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 13 making appropriate markings in the margins).

Ana Liza Garcia v. Wa State Dshs

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 3, 2019

Under the last antecedent rule, qualifying or modifying words or phrases refer to the last antecedent. State v. Bunker, 169 Wn.2d 571, 578, 238 P.3d 487 (2010). … Thus, the regulations treating individuals with pre-OAPTA and post CAPTA findings of abuse differently are clearly statutorily authorized. 21 The trial court considered Wilson’s declaration in making its findings

State Of Washington, V Clabon Terrel Berniard

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 24, 2014

And Juror 2 quite clearly admitted that she had thoughts of self - arm if she continued as a juror. … Moreover, the statements at issue here plainly served to help establish other matters in the case.

Right-Price Recreation, L.L.C. v. Connells Prairie Community Council

105 Wash. App. 813 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 2001

To help prevent such lawsuits, the legislature granted immunity from civil liability to parties who, in good faith, communicate a complaint to a government agency. RCW 4.24.510. … When “clearly necessary” to make this decision, the trial court may undertake in camera review of the requested information. Snedigar, 114 Wn.2d at 166 .

State v. Kronich

160 Wash. 2d 893 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2007

In other words, assuming there was an error, it clearly had “practical and identifiable consequences in the trial of the case.” Stein, 144 Wn.2d at 240 . … of the Court of Appeals upholding Kronich’s conviction for third degree DWLS. *905 Conclusion ¶22 Kronich’s claim that the trial court violated his rights under the confrontation clause by admitting a DOL certification qualifies

Better Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Electric, Inc.

51 P.3d 108 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 16, 2002

could reach but one conclusion." [9] Construction of Lien Statutes BFS's right to obtain payment under the contractor and subcontractor bonds, RCW 39.08.010, and the retainage statute, RCW 60.28.011, depends on whether BFS qualifies … "[ [32] ] California case law has established that, under this statute, included among "persons and laborers ... performing labor upon or bestowing skill or other necessary services on" a work of improvement are not only

Terry Brink, Inc. v. Airheart

16 Wash. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 15, 1976

Words used in a contract must be given .their ordinary meaning unless a different meaning is clearly intended. Wasser & Winters Co. v. Jefferson County, 84 Wn.2d 597 , 528 P.2d 471 (1974). … Airheart’s activities did not contractually qualify Brink for a commission under the exclusive listing agreement or the cancellation agreement.