Case law

Perkins v. CTX Mortgage Co.

137 Wash. 2d 93 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1999

Washington case law clearly prohibits lay persons from preparing legal documents, such as those at issue in this case, unless specifically exempted by this court, or certified by the Limited Practice Board. … CTX fails to demonstrate how bifurcation of the real estate loan transaction ensures that qualified individuals exercise legal discretion.

Cockle v. Dept. of Labor and Industries

16 P.3d 583 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 18, 2001

Such an argument would be persuasive had the Legislature enumerated all qualifying benefits, but it did not. … Cockle argues that, even under Larson's analytical criteria, her health care coverage should be included in "wages," since it provided valuable present peace of mind and clearly qualified as "real economic gain." [9] Courts

State v. Aquino-Cervantes

88 Wash. App. 699 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 31, 1997

RCW 2.43.080 requires that: "All language interpreters serving in a legal proceeding, whether or not certified or qualified, shall abide by a code of ethics established by supreme court rule.” … RCW 5.60.060(2) establishes privileged communications between attorney and client. The attorney-client privilege is not absolute.

Simpson Inv. Co. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REV.

965 P.2d 654 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 11, 1998

But if the ambiguity concerns an exemption or deduction, the burden is on the taxpayer to establish an exemption, Deaconess Med. Ctr. v. … Simpson is clearly not engaged in banking, loan, or security businesses. The question is whether Simpson is engaged in a "financial business."

Tammy Dietrich, V. Bruce Neely M.d.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 3, 2023

(ii) Security Guard However, the trial court erred in extending this limited immunity to security guard Wilkins. … Haftel opined that the “recorded observations of Skyler clearly demonstrates a patient who was almost certainly having a manic, schizo-affective break and, therefore, at high risk for suicide.

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Hall

698 F. Supp. 1504 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 6, 1988

The treaty clearly secures to the Tribes the right of access and the right to fish in the area now proposed to be eliminated by the construction of the Marina. … The *1520 facts and theories raised by defendants were clearly available to them at the time of the hearing and are not grounds for reconsideration.

Hughes v. Puget Sound Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund

780 F. Supp. 2d 1156 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 18, 2011

Disability will not be considered established until it has continued for a period of at least six consecutive months. … That provision clearly and unambiguously refers to the triggering event as when the participant is “under such disability.”

Fenimore v. Donald M. Drake Construction Co.

87 Wash. 2d 85 · Washington Supreme Court · May 6, 1976

All facts tending to establish a theory of a party, or to qualify or disprove the testimony of his adversary, are relevant. Ladley v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 73 Wn.2d 928 , 442 P.2d 983 (1968). … Taken together, these cases indicate that the trial court should grant such a motion if it describes the evidence which is sought to be excluded with sufficient specificity to enable the trial court to determine that it is clearly

State ex rel. Brislawn v. Meath

84 Wash. 302 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1915

The sense and discretion of the legislature, as well as its power to discriminate between an act falling clearly without and one falling clearly within the constitution, should, if we are consistent, be given the same weight … “Where the principle of direct legislation has been adopted, the legislative power is primarily in the people, and the old rule that the legislative body has primary power must be qualified.

State v. Neal

102 Wash. App. 99 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 18, 2000

But the 1976 amendments to the rule clearly establish that an identified crime lab vault is not an acknowledged substitute for “the name of the person” on the certificate. … Thus, in order for the report to qualify for mandatory admission under CrR 6.13(b), the certificate must name “the person,” not merely an entity, from whom the evidence was received for testing. 6 Here, the name of the crime

In Re Estate of Appleton

163 Wash. 632 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1931

terms as he may determine, either real or personal property *637 regardless of whether the sale is necessary to pay the debts of my estate or the expenses of administration, and no bond shall be required of my executor to qualify … The bequests in the sixth paragraph of the will are clearly unaffected by this cancellation. By the fifth paragraph of the will, as originally written, Mrs.

Overlake Fund v. City of Bellevue

60 Wash. App. 787 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 8, 1991

In September 1989, Terry verbally advised Overlake that the DDD intended to recommend denial of Over lake's project because its proposed hotel height did not qualify for a variance. … Clearly, his decision to recommend denial of Overlake's requested variance is properly characterized as "agency action."

Reynolds v. Day

79 Wash. 499 · Washington Supreme Court · May 6, 1914

It would be a very dangerous doctrine to establish, that in all cases where the several states have substituted the statute for the common law, the liability can be enforced in no other state but that where the statute was … It is true only in a qualified sense. Our law is not opposed to the common law .theory of recompense for injury. It is only opposed to the common law assumption that a suit at law furnishes adequate recompense.

Shannon Leahy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

418 P.3d 175 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 21, 2018

At the summary judgment stage with which we are concerned, both appeared qualified to render opinions whether the accident caused Leahy's DM. … But uncertainties do not establish that the offer was reasonable as a matter of law.

State v. Strauss

119 Wash. 2d 401 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1992

The court's observations in Sauve clearly do not apply to this case. The Court of Appeals explicitly held that the trial court erred in finding the aggravating factors at issue. … We do not reach this argument because even if the confrontation clause were to apply at sentencing hearings, the defendant has failed to establish that the clause was violated in his particular case.

Shelton v. Liquor and Cannabis Board of the State of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 8, 2022

Garza, who was sued in both his 1 individual and official capacities, also argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. … To 4 state a plausible § 1983 claim, Plaintiffs would need to clearly state what constitutional or 5 legal rights Defendants violated.

State v. Perkerewicz

4 Wash. App. 937 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 5, 1971

At least three uncontroverted facts clearly establish that almost daily the internal mechanism *940 of the cash register in the Bremerton store had been altered in some fashion between the time the daily “reading” had been … The appellant contends that this order violated rights protected by both the federal and state constitutions — her right to immunity from self-incrimination (fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1

Combs v. Smith

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 18, 2024

immunity. … Qualified Immunity 21 Defendants also argue that, even if there had been a constitutional violation, they are 22 protected by qualified immunity.

Ross v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

82 Wash. App. 787 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 30, 1996

The Eagle clearly was not owned for the regular use of Mrs. Ross. … The Rosses have not established an abuse of discretion. The Rosses are entitled to their attorney fees on appeal. RAP 18.1; McGreevy, 74 Wn. App. at 874 ; McGreevy, 128 Wn.2d at 40 . Affirmed.

Washington Physicians Service Ass'n v. Gregoire

967 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 23, 1997

An HMO is not an insurer but a “health care delivery system”; the purpose of an HMO is described in the HMO Act: The Legislature declares that the establishment of qualified prepaid group and individual practice health care … The Act extends to entities beyond the insurance industry and, therefore, clearly fails the third McCarran-Ferguson criterion.