Case law

In re Estate of Hambleton

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 2, 2014

The amendment allows the Department of Revenue (DOR) to tax qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) as part of a surviving spouse's estate. … His will left a testamentary trust for the benefit of his wife that qualified for the federal QTIP election.

Farmers State Bank v. Chick

143 Wash. 614 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1927

The insurance company cross-complained, and sought to establish a lien against the crop and the sale thereof, and also for the taxes paid and interest on the foreclosure judgment during the year of redemption. … C. § 9969], provides: “Every executor or administrator shall, after having qualified, by giving bond as hereinbefore provided, *619 have a right to the immediate possession of all the real as well as personal estate of the

Roberts v. Dudley

993 P.2d 901 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2000

Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy. … Rather, we recognize the long-established tort of wrongful discharge may be established when the discharge is wrongfully accomplished on account of gender. [1] Article I, section 8 of the California Constitution provides:

Marisa Bavand v. Onewest Bank Fsb

196 Wash. App. 813 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 28, 2016

The Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act ("business records act") "makes evidence that would otherwise be hearsay competent testimony."21 Statements made by a "custodian or other qualified witness" in a declaration … It clearly states that OneWest "is the holder of the promissory note" 67 Truiillo. 183 Wn.2d at 832. 68 Jd at 833. 69 id 70 id at 834. 71 Id.

State v. Aquino-Cervantes

945 P.2d 767 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 19, 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.

Iverson v. Marine Bancorporation

83 Wash. 2d 163 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1973

(The allegations of error need not be expressed in any technical form, but must clearly indicate what is intended.) 3. The trial court, guided by our opinion in O'Connor v. … Speaking of justice, I think it an injustice that one person be afforded privileges and immunities at public expense not available to all persons under like conditions.

In re the Detention of Ambers

160 Wash. 2d 543 · Washington Supreme Court · May 31, 2007

Thus, the State argues, the legislature intended to establish a more stringent standard for detainees to meet. … Ambers’ clinical record indicates that, though lapses are clearly indicated, he has benefited from treatment.”); CP at 465 (“Mr.

Krause v. Adams County

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2020

consistent with her 17 18 1 In her Response, Plaintiff did not articulate a separate argument for the 19 Washington State Privileges and Immunities … A 6|| department Head or Elected Official may recommend an initial rate of pay beyond 7|| the minimum of a salary range if an appointee is exceptionally well qualified for or experienced in the position.

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.

Kilb v. First Student Transportation, LLC

157 Wash. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2010

Kilb claimed his discharge violated the right of employees to organize and form unions, RCW 49.36.010, in contravention of Washington State’s clearly established public policy against interfering with these rights, RCW 49.32.020 … Kilb argues that federal authority establishing this rule is nonbinding. But preemption law is federal law and is controlling of this jurisdiction issue. Hue v.

Hetrick v. Smith

67 Wash. 664 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1912

Kelley, without the respondent’s knowledge or consent, five shares of this stock without consideration-, and for the obvious purpose of qualifying him to act as a trustee of the corporation. … This would clearly be the actual value if the book value of the assets be taken as their actual worth.

Simons v. Stokely Foods, Inc.

35 Wash. 2d 920 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1950

The defendant, Stokely Foods, Inc., is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the state of Delaware, and for some years has been qualified to transact business within the state of Washington. … Custom is not established by a single act and may not be established by one or several repetitions of the same act; but in order to establish a custom the practice must have been so uniform and repeated so many times and

Grae-El v. City of Seattle

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2022

Although Plaintiffs do not describe the claim clearly in 17 their complaint, they have elsewhere characterized this claim as one brought pursuant to 18 18 U.S.C. § 241. (See SPS Resp. … [a]n agent’s 8 immunity from civil liability generally does not establish a defense for the principal.” 9 Babcock v.

Jason Alan Smith v. City of Renton et al.

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 22, 2026

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of 8 a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United … Thus, any amended complaint must not cross- 19 reference his previous complaints, and must clearly identify the claims, 20

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.

CLARK COUNTY PUD v. Dept. of Revenue

222 P.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 26, 2010

The Last Antecedent Rule ¶ 37 The last antecedent rule of statutory construction provides that unless a contrary intent appears in the statute, a qualifying phrase refers to the last antecedent, and a comma before the qualifying … See RCW 82.04.010 ("Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions set forth in the sections preceding RCW 82.04.220 apply throughout this chapter. ") (emphasis added.)

Bernsen v. Big Bend Electric Cooperative, Inc.

68 Wash. App. 427 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 12, 1993

Michael Bemsen did not qualify as a new member [of the cooperative]". Michael Bemsen offered to pay the entire cost of the power line extension in advance of installation. … Michael Bemsen contends the unrefuted testimony established its cost at $61,921, not $75,000.

State v. Brock

126 Wash. App. 957 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 18, 2005

There is no deficiency in this proof that would establish probable cause to find the contrary. … the value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the governmental interest, including costs and administrative burdens of additional procedures. 11 Here, the private interest affected — freedom from confinement — is clearly

Ellefson v. Pine Tree Harbor

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 3, 2025

Nonetheless, a 17 pro se plaintiff is not entirely immune from the rules of civil procedure. … She also fails to establish that she will suffer irreparable harm 19 absent Court action.

State v. Sims

171 Wash. 2d 436 · Washington Supreme Court · May 5, 2011

While RAP 2.4(a) does not limit the scope of argument a respondent may make, it qualifies any relief sought by the respondent beyond affirmation of the lower court. See In re Arbitration of Doyle, 93 Wn. … The trial court in Sims’s case clearly knew it had the option to grant or not grant a SSOSA and even that it could apply a geographical restriction.