Case law

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

No Ka Oi Corp. v. National 60 Minute Tune, Inc.

71 Wash. App. 844 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 6, 1993

Here, NKO introduced the opinion of a qualified expert based on sales data from 300 Precision Tune franchisees around the country, as well as Precision Tune's own revenue projections in an offering circular used to sell franchises … Although some of NKO's data was based on the presence of Midas Muffler franchises in Hawaii, as well as gross-revenue figures derived from a co-owner of a defunct Precision Time franchise in Honolulu, this evidence did not clearly

State v. Owen Gale Ray

Washington Supreme Court · Sep 11, 2025

As noted above, “[i]n order to qualify as the ‘same offense’ for double jeopardy purposes, the two offenses must be the same both in law and in fact.” Id. at 815. … Yet, it is well established that the State may choose to “clearly distinguish between the acts” supporting the charges during closing arguments. State v. Peña Fuentes, 179 Wn.2d 808, 825, 318 P.3d 257 (2014).

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.

Kilb v. FIRST STUDENT TRANSPORTATION, LLC

236 P.3d 968 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2010

Kilb claimed his discharge violated the right of employees to organize *971 and form unions, RCW 49.36.010, in contravention of Washington State's clearly established public policy against interfering with these rights, RCW … But the court qualified this rule, noting that courts strain to find Board jurisdiction in cases involving unfair labor practices even where it is unclear that all the parties are subject to the Act. [6] Hotel Employees,

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.

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.'

Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap County

167 Wash. 2d 428 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 29, 2009

In addition, the award clearly states that LaFrance “is not entitled to back pay per se, but may keep any Unemployment Insurance benefits for which he is monetarily eligible.” CP at 83. … The arbitrator found that the County had shown that (1) LaFrance was given warning, (2) the rules were reasonable, (3) the County made an effort to establish whether the violations had occurred, (4) the County’s investigation

Stirling v. Seattle, R. & S. Ry. Co.

198 F. 913 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 22, 1912

on account of the reasons first mentioned, it should not be preserved, but destroyed, it is not perceived but that the relief sought and the subject-matter of the suits are the same, or, at least, so far involved as to establish … This distinction will more clearly appear from an examination of the case of Shields v. Coleman.

In Re Marriage of Ayyad

38 P.3d 1033 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 19, 2002

Here, the record reflects that the options at issue are "non-qualified" (incentive) options, which are treated as wages for federal income tax purposes when exercised and cashed in. … A party challenging the award has the burden to prove that the trial court abused its discretion by making a decision that is clearly untenable or manifestly unreasonable.

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

State v. Thompson

143 Wash. App. 861 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 2008

Restraint of Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353, 368 , 759 P.2d 436 (1988). f 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 … Thompson has not established that DOC improperly modified the order, and his argument is without merit. V.

State v. Huynh

49 Wash. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 1987

That standard is "whether the scientific principle from which deductions are made is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the scientific community." State v. … The proffered testimony by Officer Ziebell was clearly hearsay and not admissible under ER 801 or any exception to the hearsay rule.

Bremerton Creamery & Produce Co. v. Elliott

184 Wash. 80 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1935

Marshall having qualified as executor, the administration of the estate proceeded in an orderly manner. T. O. … It was initiated by such an agreement and established by a consent decree entered pursuant thereto.

In Re Faucett's Estate

160 Wash. 295 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1931

Surely that witness was qualified to pass on Fau-cett ’s capacity to make a will. … As far as I am concerned I understood him clearly and I put the question to him clearly. It is not a matter in which I could be mistaken about the conversation. Q. Now, Mr.

Arrow Reliance Inc v. Woodcock

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 30, 2022

The plaintiff must allege facts, not 7 mere legal conclusions, in compliance with the pleading standards established by Bell Atlantic 8 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. … an adverse publication to qualify as a sanction.

State v. Crumpton

172 Wash. App. 408 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 11, 2012

This means establishing on a more probable than not basis that the wrong person was convicted.” Thompson , 173 Wn.2d at 876-77 (Madsen, C.J., dissenting). … As our Supreme Court explained in Riofta : Our statute was drafted to qualify Washington for federal funding under the Justice For All Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 108-405,118 Stat. 2260,2261-62.

State v. Harris

97 Wash. App. 865 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 18, 1999

The standard of review is clearly abuse of discretion, and for good reason. Demos, 94 Wn.2d at 736 ; State v. Mendez, 29 Wn. App. 610, 611 , 630 P.2d 476 (1981). … Evidence tending to establish a party’s theory, or to qualify or disprove the testimony of an adversary, is always relevant and admissible. Lamborn v. Phillips Pac. Chem.

Luv v. W. Coast Servicing, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 9, 2025

However, the lower courts failed to follow Union Bank’s holding explaining what qualified as a change in law. … An appellate court may reconsider only those decisions that were clearly erroneous and that would work a manifest injustice to one party if the clearly erroneous decision were not set aside, and no corresponding injustice

Makoviney v. Svinth

21 Wash. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 7, 1978

Clearly, the words do not pertain to an act that was done. Rather, they express the thought of the unidentified declarant that something should have been done. … Clearly, the evidence does not qualify under the res gestae criteria of Beck v. Dye, 200 Wash. 1 , 92 P.2d 1113 (1939).