Case law

Great Northern Railway Co. v. State

184 Wash. 648 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1935

Respondent’s second contention is that the invalidity of the act was established by the evidence produced upon the trial. … While the account kept by the auditor was not official, in the sense that, of itself, it was admissible in evidence, yet what the auditor did in that respect qualified him to testify as to the ultimate fact.

Chappell v. Chappell

124 Wash. 128 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1923

Text writers lay down the rule that the intention will govern, without qualifying the statement. Thompson on Wills, § 45; 22 Am. & Eng. Ency. … The exception is as well established as the rule, yet we have found no case in which it has been applied, except Avhere the bequest was for a charity in another state or county.

State v. Cleveland

58 Wash. App. 634 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 30, 1990

Although first developed in civil litigation, collateral estoppel has been an established rule of federal criminal law at least since this Court's decision more than 50 years ago in United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U. … The Dupard court held that estoppel did not apply, stating that the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be qualified or rejected when its application would contravene public policy.

Hall v. Wilson

65 Wash. 137 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1911

The business was at first conducted in Seattle, but later an office in charge of Wilson was established in Chehalis, where the business could be prosecuted to better advantage with less expense, Hall remaining in Seattle. … This evidence, which involved an accounting and an examination of the corporation books, is not'as clearly set forth in the statement of facts as it might be.

Elkins v. Schaaf

4 Wash. 2d 12 · Washington Supreme Court · May 2, 1940

Schaaf, supra, is clearly correct. … That is sufficient to establish a public interest.

Terrace v. Thompson

274 F. 841 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 25, 1921

This clearly appears from the note of Baron Uehida to Mr. … waters of the state, while all aliens of the Caucasian .race are permitted to fish freely in the same waters with Impunity and without restraint, and exempt from all punishments, is to exclude him from enjoying the same immunities

Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against Burtch

175 P.3d 1070 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2008

The party calling the expert must demonstrate that the witness qualifies as an expert based on "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." ER 702. Mr. … The conclusions of law are clearly separated from factual findings. As stated above, findings of fact will be reviewed for substantial evidence. ¶ 40 Mr.

Northwest Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Lockwood

25 Wash. 2d 22 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1946

Pitzen constituted the Board of Directors or trustees of plaintiff, and each of said persons held qualifying shares to the amount of $500.00, on account of which qualifying shares withdrawal payments were not made, under … In justice to the seven shareholders and directors, it must be very clearly pointed out that they contemplate no dissolution or division of the assets among themselves.

Stegriy v. King County Board of Appeals

39 Wash. App. 346 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 27, 1984

The license inspector's description of the results of his investigation clearly revealed that the gravamen of the complaints was excessive noise. … "A statute will not be construed as taking away the power of a municipality to legislate unless this intent is clearly and expressly stated." State ex rel. Schillberg v. Everett Dist.

Layton v. City of Yakima

170 Wash. 332 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1932

court announced: “The rule, however, which this court has uniformly adopted is that an action for personal injuries should not be taken from the jury on the ground of plaintiff’s contributory negligence, unless the same so clearly … “It would seem that the cases from which we have quoted furnish ample material for qualifying instructions cautioning the jury against improper use of such tables, but as against the weight of authority we do not feel justified

Somsak v. CRITON TECHNOLOGIES

52 P.3d 43 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 19, 2002

Specifically, the superior court excluded testimony from a person not qualified as an expert witness. … Somsak raised the health care benefits issue at this point, but presented no evidence to establish the value of those benefits.

Haywood v. Amazon.com Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 18, 2023

The failure to 6 establish any element undermines a CPA claim. Id. at 784. … “The 10 prototypical service qualifying for [CDA] immunity is an online messaging board (or bulletin 11 board) on which Internet subscribers post comments and respond to comments posted by others.” 12 Kimzey v.

Axtell v. MacRae

133 Wash. 490 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1925

into the contract—and it may here be remarked parenthetically that the appellant is not an inexperienced woman; that she had the opportunity to and did discuss the matter of her timber *493 claim and its disposition with qualified … The trial court found that respondent, at the “time of closing this deal, intended to engage in the enterprise of logging this timber.” *496 There is no evidence that meets the requirements of the rule and establishes clearly

Zunino v. Rajewski

165 P.3d 57 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2007

Similarly, "[a] deed of easement is not required to establish the actual location of an easement, but is required to convey an easement which encumbrances a specific servient estate." Id. … Swerda, 58 Wash.App. 375, 382 , 793 P.2d 442 (1990). ¶ 28 "No particular words are necessary to constitute a grant and any words which clearly show the intention to give an easement are sufficient."

Sylvester v. Pierce County

148 Wash. App. 813 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 2009

We hold that the lots were not vested by March 1, 2005, and, as a result, Becker and the Collinses cannot qualify for a reasonable use exception. … We may grant relief from a land use decision here if the Sylvesters carry their burden of establishing one of the six standards of relief.

Sylvester v. Pierce County

201 P.3d 381 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 2009

We hold that the lots were not vested by March 1, 2005, and, as a result, Becker and the Collinses cannot qualify for a reasonable use exception. … We may grant relief from a land use decision here if the Sylvesters carry their burden of establishing one of the six standards of relief.

Low Income Housing Institute v. City of Lakewood

119 Wash. App. 110 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 9, 2003

whether the record before the Board and its findings establish that the Board decided whether Lakewood’s Plan is consistent with Pierce County’s CPP. … both goals and the specific requirements in determining whether a plan complies with the GMA: *116 The board shall find compliance [with GMA] unless it determines that the action by the state agency, county, or city is clearly

Power v. Chadwick

166 Wash. 398 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1932

The adjudication of the insolvency of the lumber *403 company and the appointment of a receiver in no wise established any lien upon this machinery.” … Goodwin that such stock was bought for Power, is competent evidence, and establishes respondent’s claim that the stock was purchased.

Somsak v. Criton Technologies/Heath Tecna, Inc.

113 Wash. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 19, 2002

Specifically, the superior court excluded testimony from a person not qualified as an expert witness. … Somsak raised the health care benefits issue at this point, but *96 presented no evidence to establish the value of those benefits.

State v. Lord

161 Wash. 2d 276 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2007

jurisdiction of federal courts to grant habeas relief, mandating that such relief shall not be available unless the State court decision “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).