Case law

Davis v. City of Wenatchee

86 Wash. 13 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1915

What is more to the point is that the city can gain no immunity by reason of an invalid contract or an invalid mode of performing the work. … Under the evidence here, the question of contributory negligence was clearly one for the jury. Crabb v. Wilkins; Akin v. Bradley Eng. & Mach. Co., and Mathis v. Granger Brick & Tile Co., supra. IV.

City of Seattle v. Erickson

Washington Supreme Court · Jul 6, 2017

A trial judge's decision under the original Batson test is entitled great deference and will be reversed only if the defendant can show it was clearly erroneous. Hernandez v. … We should assume that all members of the public who adhere to a summons to appear for jury service are qualified to hear a case unless otherwise shown.

State v. Powers

149 Wash. 509 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1928

The facts necessary to a determination of the points involved are: Both appellants run soft drink parlors, confectionery and pool room establishments in Se *510 attle. … The words ‘every other liquor or liquid containing intoxicating properties’ qualify nothing else, but describe and add another class to the things the sale and manufacture of which are prohibited.

Wilson Court v. Tony Maroni's

952 P.2d 590 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1998

Given the circumstance of the bank altering the signatures, it was clearly put on notice of a problem. … Because the bank had failed to produce extrinsic evidence of Hawk's intent, the court turned to established rules of construction.

Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford

193 Wash. 451 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1938

. *464 I do not pursue this subject further because, in the first place, it is vain to labor overmuch in attempting to establish the obvious; and second, the question has been settled by authority binding upon this court. … The rationale of the majority opinion is, therefore, clearly unsound. I think the result is, also.

Flanigan v. Department of Labor & Industries

123 Wash. 2d 418 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1994

RCW 51.24.060(1)(e). [6] *437 Clearly then, reimbursement is based on the amount rather than the nature of the recovery. … Clearly, the court is not referring to the nature of the recovery or the nature of the damages.

Campbell v. Reed

134 Wash. App. 349 · 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 do not apply. … But the court qualified this assertion: “[Conceding 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

In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served February 27, 1984

599 F. Supp. 1006 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 18, 1984

Apparently, the government was unable to establish a connection between “Doe” and the businesses. … Original records shall be produced to the Grand Jury on the date shown on the subpoena, supported by testimony of a qualified custodian of records. 2.

Sherman v. Kruse

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2025

“To qualify as advocacy, an act must be ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the 15 criminal process.’” Id. (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). … Rather, that statute merely establishes how a declarant or affiant 21 should attest to the veracity of a written statement.

Freedom Foundation v. Gregoire

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 17, 2013

Only those communications made to inform policy choices qualify for the privilege. … Without clearly articulated guidance, there is the potential for inconsistent and overly broad application of the privilege.

ZeBarth v. Swedish Hospital Medical Center

81 Wash. 2d 12 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1972

What proof is necessary to establish a duty to inform? … We perceive the general rule to be—except in extraordinary circumstances where the duty to disclose is so clearly manifest that reasonable minds could not in reason differ on the question—that the standards of the medical

United States v. Puget Sound Traction, Light & Power Co.

215 F. 436 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 20, 1914

The equitable, rule of concealed fraud, qualifying the absolute terms of the statute, was in-grafted upon it by judicial construction. … In the Minor Case the particular point in controversy was the establishment of the original fraud in obtaining patent.

Hoselton v. Washington State Department of Ecology

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 7, 2023

Eleventh Amendment immunity extends 20 to state agencies. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. … constitutional immunity.

Rublee v. Carrier Corp.

428 P.3d 1207 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 1, 2018

After limited discovery, Pfizer moved for summary judgment on the ground that Rublee could not establish apparent manufacturer liability. … However, where the real manufacturer or packer is clearly and accurately identified on the label or other markings on the goods, and it is also clearly stated that another who is also named has nothing to do with the goods

City of Kennewick v. State

67 Wash. 2d 589 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1965

In the present case, the operation of the water system by the city is clearly within the purview of the public utility tax. … This decision is predicated upon the well established and sound business principle that no income results from return of capital.

Depositors Bond Co. v. Christensen

185 Wash. 161 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1936

Two years later, another corporation, known as Mutual Benefit Club, was organized, all of its stock, with the exception of qualifying shares issued to its directors, being owned by the older corporation. … It clearly appears that Mr.

State v. Garland

169 Wash. App. 869 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 8, 2012

Although an attorney’s statement may sometimes qualify as an admission of the client when offered against the client, it does not qualify when the attorney is pleading alternatively or inconsistently on the client’s behalf … Counsel should not, except when the truth-seeking purpose clearly demands otherwise, be deterred from legitimate argument by apprehension about arguments made to a jury in an earlier trial.

Hammond v. Gee (In Re Gee)

156 B.R. 291 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 28, 1993

TRIAL At trial 6 Hammond, a community college student and part-time model, testified about her hiring by Gee as a receptionist for Star Limousine, over better qualified applicants (whose resumes- she later filed), apparently … The evidence clearly established that Gee made sexual advances on Hammond (uncontested) which included physical contact (the parties differ on the extent).

White v. Wilhelm

34 Wash. App. 763 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 25, 1983

The trial court concluded: It has not been clearly established that the defendant's lot number 19 is an interior lot, thus bringing into play . . . III.D(2). … The plaintiffs have not established a clear equitable or legal basis which would warrant a mandatory injunction or allow for damages.

Great Northern Railway Co. v. Washington Electric Co.

197 Wash. 627 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1939

Even though not immune from such destruction they are, nevertheless, an appropriate subject for legislative protection.” The court further pointed out that § 10 (c) of the act (16 U. S. C. … Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., supra, the supreme court of the United States speaks of that interest as a qualified title.