Case law

C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop

138 Wash. 2d 699 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1999

First Amendment concerns are clearly at issue. … The issue is not one of immunity. It is a matter of the constitutional right to religious freedom.

In Re Dependency of TJB

62 P.3d 891 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 9, 2003

He claims he qualifies under the latter two criteria, and does not argue the first. … Brown did not deny that this incident occurred, and a child wandering unsupervised by the roadway clearly poses the potential for physical harm to the child.

State v. Stubbs

240 P.3d 143 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2010

excessive or clearly too lenient. … Likewise, the loss of a leg, a "significant permanent loss . . . of the function of [a] bodily part," would qualify as "great bodily harm"; but so would paraplegia.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

160 Wash. App. 274 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 13, 2011

A hearings board does “not have jurisdiction to decide challenges to site-specific land use decisions because site-specific land use decisions do not qualify as comprehensive plans or development regulations.” Woods v. … And clearly it is. The challenged action was in fact legislative; it involved an amendment to a comprehensive plan. See Coffey, 145 Wn.

Malyon v. Pierce County

79 Wash. App. 452 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 10, 1995

establishment.” … of expressly religious benefits primarily to those who would be inclined to seek the guidance of a Baptist minister. 77 The court also found that the contract threatened excessive entanglement with religion by failing to clearly

In Re T.c.

450 P.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 28, 2019

T.C. testified that he "was one of two building inspectors that was qualified for the Federal Emergency Management Administration to do work on the First Avenue courthouse when it was rebuilt in 1999." … This argument has been rejected by the court numerous times and we find no reason to depart from well-established 7 No. 78222-3-1/8 precedent.

In Re The Detention Of L.K.

471 P.3d 975 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 1, 2020

The Supreme Court held that in determining whether the State had adequately protected a person’s rights, courts must show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified professional, particularly when it came to a determination … As discussed above, former RCW 71.05.215(2)(a) and former RCW 71.05.217(7)(b) clearly require the State to attempt to obtain informed consent before involuntarily administering psychotropic medications.

State Ex Rel. Wash. Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle

54 Wash. 2d 545 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1959

in connection with construction of a second Lake Washington toll bridge, at a site to be determined *549 by the toll bridge authority, or any subsequent refunding bond issues or for sinking, fund requirements or reserves established … We cannot see how this grant of continuing authority to pledge further moneys from the Motor Vehicle Fund can be said merely to “qualify” the one-hundred-thousand-dollar appropriation contained in sub-paragraph (1).

Hawkins v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 19, 2024

And even if the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System 18 qualifies as a “facility” under the AVAA, Ms. Hawkins has not shown that her AVAA 19 claim overcomes the sovereign immunity bar. … Hawkins’s guilty plea establishes, as a matter of law, that she was 20 sane when she attacked her mother. (Mot. at 13-14.) The court is not persuaded by this unpublished, out-of-circuit case.

Nwauzor v. The GEO Group Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 20, 2021

As to the second question regarding intergovernmental immunity, GEO disputes 2 the Court’s application of established legal principles. … While GEO clearly does not agree with 3 the Court’s rulings on the issues presented in the proposed questions, “a party’s strong 4 disagreement with the Court's ruling is not sufficient for there to be a substantial

Grant v. Boccia

137 P.3d 20 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 6, 2006

A witness qualified as an expert may testify on the basis of "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" if the testimony "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue … CP at 592, 593.); FREDERICK WOLFE, POST-TRAUMATIC FIBROMYALGIA: A CASE REPORT NARRATED BY THE PATIENT (1994) (stating "there is no clearly agreed upon mechanism by which an injury could cause fibromyalgia."

Washington Federation of State Employees v. State

101 Wash. 2d 536 · Washington Supreme Court · May 17, 1984

By inducing employees to remain in state employment, the State assures itself of a highly qualified, experienced pool of workers to fill its vacancies. … The majority's decision to abandon this distinction stems in large part from the fact that the Governor's veto here was clearly affirmative in nature.

Buchanan v. SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD.

76 Wash. 2d 100 · Washington Supreme Court · May 29, 1969

He has been with them for 10 years and we are quite sure you will find him qualified. We also have a very detailed estimate of repairs from C. M. Melburn Co. … In applying this rule, however, in varying factual situations we have not clearly drawn the line of distinction between the doctrines of waiver and estoppel as they relate to the actions and declarations of an independent

State Ex Rel. Swanson v. Perham

30 Wash. 2d 368 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1948

It has always been, and now is, a private corporation qualified to engage in buying, selling, handling, and otherwise dealing in fruits, vegetables, grain, and all kinds of agricultural, horticultural, and poultry products … It can alter or modify any right, privi *382 lege, or immunity granted by it.

State v. Smissaert

41 Wash. App. 813 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 1985

Smith's testimony was necessary to establish the proposition that because of his intoxication he could not formulate the necessary intent to commit the burglary. [1] The admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion … Alexis, supra , we clearly rejected any per se rule for the admissibility of prior conviction evidence. ER 609(a)(1) requires the exercise of discretion.

Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v. Board of Regents of University of Washington

72 Wash. 2d 912 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1967

the same principle, to the detriment of others whose rights will be controlled by the precedent established. … Clearly, the program set up by the state board of education and the local school board violated our constitutional prohibitions. Recently, the Supreme Court in Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U.S. 54 , 19 L.

State Ex Rel. O'Connell v. Yelle

51 Wash. 2d 594 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1958

This clearly recognized a distinction between expenses and compensation as the latter word is used in the constitution. … I believe this language is broad enough to cover among other expenses those incurred by a state official in moving to and establishing residence at the seat of state government, and in re-establishing residence elsewhere

Development Services of America, Inc. v. City of Seattle

138 Wash. 2d 107 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1999

Ultimately the court’s legal choice is between a more restrictive or a less restrictive definition, as the word “necessary” clearly has different meanings. … City of Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 369, 378 , 739 P.2d 668 (1987), we qualified “such preference to property owners is only warranted to the extent ambiguity exists.”

Michael Tepper v. Orit Tepper

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 18, 2019

The trial court denied Michael’s petition on the basis that the credible evidence clearly established the children as habitual residents of Washington at the time Orit removed them from Israel. … The court also found that the evidence clearly established that the only reason the children remained in Israel was due to the no-exit orders, and despite living in Israel for two years, the children never acclimated.

Vogleson v. Cottin

31 Wash. 2d 823 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1948

Upon the filing of the petition, an ex parte order was entered granting special letters of administration to Vogleson, who qualified by filing his oath and bond. September 5, 1947, C. B. W. Raymond, attorney for Mr. … Gallinger, I remember very clearly, said ‘Here is the key- — •’ [Interpolation by counsel and court] Q.