Case law

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.

Cerrillo v. Esparza

142 P.3d 155 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2006

By phrasing the statute in such a way, the legislature has provided that all employees of a service and retail establishment can be paid under the RSE." Id. at 884-85, 64 P.3d 10 (citation omitted). … However, the structure of the statute clearly signals a disjunctive reading. RCW 49.46.130(2)(g) is divided into three subsections enumerated (i), (ii), and (iii), and separated by semicolons and the word "or."

Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc.

175 Wash. 2d 83 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2012

of legal procedures established in those same statutes. … court-martial qualified as a prior conviction for purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 (SRA), chapter 9.94A RCW.

Winfrey v. Rocket Research Co.

58 Wash. App. 722 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 6, 1990

The proof showed that the intensely hazardous 12,500-volt panels were not clearly distinguishable from the low voltage panels. … Expert testimony established that the lack of warning labels distinguishing the high voltage panels was misleading even to an electrician.

McDermott v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 9, 2025

It defines a physician as an 4 M.D. or a medical practitioner deemed by the state to have the same authority as a 5 qualified medical doctor. Id. (citing Dkt. 12-1 at 228). … McDermott’s claim that Dompe 20 “clearly satisfies” the policy’s definition of a medical doctor or a medical practitioner 21 with the same authority as a legally qualified medical doctor is not correct.

McLean v. Archer

32 Wash. 2d 234 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1948

The contract itself must make the precise act which is to be done clearly as *241 certainable. … an independent claim in favor of the estate, and then claim the benefit of the statute when the adverse party sought to qualify or explain his testimony.”

State Of Washington v. Evergreen Freedom Foundation

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 7, 2017

The initiative processes at each level are established by state law and involve somewhat different requirements. … But as our interpretation above establishes, RCW 42.17A.005(4) presents a single, clearly delineated definition for what constitutes a “ballot proposition.”

Committee of Tort Litigants v. Catholic Diocese of Spokane (In Re the Catholic Bishop of Spokane)

329 B.R. 304 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 26, 2005

(b) Has the Debtor Established an Express Trust? R.C.W. 24.12 clearly authorizes the corporate sole to exercise civil legal rights, including the right to establish trusts 6 . … Clearly, issues of fact exist.

State v. Smith

2 Wash. App. 769 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 25, 1970

To the contrary, the law is established that in considering a person's conduct, membership in one race or another is immaterial. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. … We, therefore, take judicial notice of the fact that the offer on its face was clearly erroneous and if received would have been of no probative value.

Gerlach v. The Cove Apartments, LLC

196 Wash. 2d 111 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2020

Vincenzi Under our evidence rules, an expert may testify if he or she is qualified and his or her testimony will help the trier of fact. ER 702; see also L.M. v. … But we have clearly held that such criticisms go to the weight of the expert’s testimony, not its admissibility. Keefe, 159 Wn.2d at 831. Neither our precedent nor our evidence rules require Dr.

In Re Adoption of BT

78 P.3d 634 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 30, 2003

The G.C.B. court found that the trial court's ruling was "so contrary to established principles in the law of adoption" that it felt compelled to comment further on the issue of standing. Id. at 718 , 870 P.2d 1037 . … 13.34.200 deprives a parent, whose parental rights have been terminated, of standing in all future legal proceedings concerning the child: "Upon the termination of parental rights[,] ... all rights, powers, privileges, immunities

Campbell v. Reed

139 P.3d 419 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 1, 2006

We hold that because Campbell failed to establish color of title, RCW 7.28.070 and RCW 7.28.080 *421 do not apply. … But the court qualified this assertion, "[c]onceding the necessity under the provisions of our statute, to show color of title on the part of the respondent in this case,— a question upon which we do not now pass, —it seems

State Of Washington, V. Colton Norris Noe

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2023

The key, however, in Phelan was that, while a fundamental liberty right was not implicated, there was a clearly defined class: people serving time in jail before trial. Id. … Here, we first conclude Noe fails to establish that he was treated differently from others who were similarly situated. Osman, 157 Wn.2d at 485.

Duc Tan v. Le

177 Wash. 2d 649 · Washington Supreme Court · May 9, 2013

The event, Armed Forces Day, commemorates the establishment of the South Vietnamese Army and is typically held on June 19. … However, due to concerns about stifling valuable public debate, the privilege of “ ‘fair comment’ ” was incorporated into the common law as an affirmative defense to an action for defamation; it afforded “ ‘legal immunity

Vangemert v. McCalmon

68 Wash. 2d 618 · Washington Supreme Court · May 19, 1966

The instruction that the jury could consider the loss of earnings was clearly proper. … The trial court deeming him not to be qualified, refused to admit his testimony.

Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 3d 1196 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 23, 2019

Postmates , the court found that the plaintiffs had not established that they fell within the transportation worker exemption because they "do not cite any case holding that making only local deliveries, for a company that … Defendants argue that Washington law is clearly applicable in the event that the FAA does not apply. The Court disagrees.

Unifund Ccr, Llc v. Amy Elyse

195 Wash. App. 110 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 18, 2016

Askew, 358 S.W.3d 58, 62-64 (Mo. 2012) (debt buyer's records custodian not qualified to lay foundation for business records rule when custodian had never worked for business that prepared the records and was not familiar … You agree to use your account in No. 73510-1/6 detailed and itemized, constitutes acceptance of terms clearly stated in a cardmember agreement."18 In order to prove Elyse's assent to the terms of the 2010 cardmember

To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins

27 P.3d 1149 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 2, 2001

. § 1983 , accepting as a *1152 second basis for dismissal the State's qualified immunity defense. … To-Ro's pleadings clearly present an actual dispute or at least the mature seeds of one. Moreover the factual record establishes To-Ro's loss of revenue is real and demonstrable.

McPherson v. McPherson

200 Wash. 365 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1939

branch, as executor thereof, was duly proved and admitted to probate in Spokane county, and that the bank above named was regularly appointed as executor of the estate of the deceased, May 22, 1939; that the executor has qualified … The distribution of property in such an action is incidental, and it is clearly incontestable that, upon the death of either party, whether before or after the decree, the subject of the controversy is eliminated.

State Of Washington, Respondent/cross v. Thomas Lee Floyd, Appellant/cross-respondent

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 2013

Thus, the phrase " on its face" clearly has a similar meaning in both lines of cases. … Thus, a charging document that fails to clearly set forth e] very material element of the charge" renders the resulting conviction constitutionally invalid. McCarty, 140 Wn.2d at 425.