Case law

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

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.

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.

Retired Public Employees Council v. Charles

148 Wash. 2d 602 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2003

This letter contained several qualifiers to which the executive director alerted appellant organizations. … The statutory provisions are clearly referenced in section 906(7).

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.

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 v. Hayward

152 Wash. App. 632 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 11, 2009

“Evidence is admissible under ER 702 if the witness qualifies as an expert and the expert testimony would be helpful to the jury.” State v. We, 138 Wn. … The question asked just deals clearly with the legal standard. RP (Apr. 8, 2008) at 39-40.

Saffo v. Owens

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 23, 2021

Cal. 3 Sept. 10, 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675-84) (“supervisor defendants are entitled to 4 qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply ‘bald’ or ‘conclusory’ because 5 such allegations … do not ‘plausibly’ establish the supervisors’ personal involvement”). 6 II.

Hyde v. Heller

10 Wash. 586 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1895

Said the court, referring to the statute: "This statute contemplates and clearly gives the right to-proceed against either executor or administrator, for a conveyance in pursuance of the contract of the deceased. … The tender being an affirmative proposition to be established by the plaintiffs, we think, under the testimony, presuming the witnesses to *609 be equally credible, that they failed to establish the tender on the points disputed

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.

Whatcom County v. State

99 Wash. App. 237 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 31, 2000

The State argues that Graham’s acts constituted “advice to a county official,” which is clearly a county function. … That case addressed the question of whether the Pennsylvania district attorney’s office is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S.

Link v. Link

268 P.3d 963 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2011

The findings on "best interest" drafted by Pamela and entered by the court were not clearly adopted by Tia. Nor, for that matter, do they establish actual detriment. … The error clearly affected Tia's rights in seeking a modification of T.L.'

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.

In Re Kane's Estate

20 Wash. 2d 76 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 14, 1944

The only question for consideration in the proceeding to have the will established in probate is as to its validity. … Anything going to the validity of the will as of that date is clearly a proper subject to be raised by a contest of the probate.

State v. Thompson

181 P.3d 858 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 2008

. ¶ 12 To determine facial invalidity of a prior conviction, the sentencing court may review the judgment and sentence and any other document that qualifies as "the face of the conviction." See State v. … Thompson has not established that DOC improperly modified the order, and his argument is without merit. V.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Leahy

774 F. Supp. 2d 1104 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2011

Zabel did not qualify as a “vendor” or as “any other party” under Section C of the policy. (Id. Ex. 3.) … The Supreme Court has established certain factors that district courts may take into consideration when deciding whether judicial estoppel is appropriate in a given case: (1) whether the party’s later position is “clearly

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.

State v. O'Cain

169 Wash. App. 228 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 2012

Contrary to respondent’s assertion, there is not a third category of witnesses, helpful to the prosecution, but somehow immune from confrontation. … In short, the decision clearly establishes that, when a defendant’s confrontation right is not timely asserted, it is lost. 5 ¶28 The Court continues to adhere to this view. 6 Last year, the Court had the opportunity to revisit

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.

State v. Powers

99 P.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 16, 2004

Regardless of the precise articulation, some statements qualify under any definition — for example, ex parte testimony at a preliminary hearing. … But despite this characterization, based on indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, Crawford clearly rejects the admission of testimonial statements based on "the vagaries of the rules of evidence, much less to amorphous