Case law

United States v. Washington

384 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 12, 1974

The fishing right was reserved by the Indians and cannot be qualified by the state. … To qualify for self-regulation of off reservation treaty right fishing as above provided, a tribe must establish to the satisfaction of either Fisheries and Game or the court, that the tribe has each of the following qualifications

State v. Sandoval

171 Wash. 2d 163 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2011

Additionally, had the trial court specifically addressed the deportation provision in Sandoval’s plea agreement, the record would not establish prejudice. … An offense qualifies as “an aggravated felony if and only if the Tull range of conduct’ covered by it falls within the meaning of that term.” United States v.

International Rehabilitative Sciences, Inc. v. Sebelius

737 F. Supp. 2d 1281 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 29, 2010

RS Medical has clearly made out a case of agency inconsistency. … RS Medical maintains that the peer-reviewed articles submitted, in addition to the widespread actual use of and payment for the BIOIOOO, clearly establish its acceptance and appropriateness.

Ray v. King County

120 Wash. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 15, 2004

But these subsequent conveyances only establish that Hilchkanum understood that the railway had a right-of-way across his lands. … by stating that a “deed in statutory form grants [an] easement where additional language in the deed expressly and clearly limits or qualifies the interest granted.” 101 *597 Conversely, when the deed contains no language

Fischer-McReynolds v. Quasim

101 Wash. App. 801 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 7, 2000

To establish a prima facie case of a failure to accommodate, Fischer-McReynolds must show that (1) she is handicapped, 3 (2) she is qualified to fill a vacant position with her employer, and (3) her employer failed to reasonably … Fischer-McReynolds clearly was alleging violations of civil service statutes and regulations. Thus, she could not seek remedies in superior court until she first pursued available administrative remedies.

Sheldon v. Fettig

77 Wash. App. 775 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 9, 1995

Further, the question presented is one of law (and neither party contends otherwise) — whether Fettig’s ties to the Seattle address are sufficient to qualify that residence as "a usual place of abode”. Clingan v. … At one end of the scale, the parents’ home is clearly the usual place of abode. At the other end of the scale, the parents’ home is clearly not the usual place of abode. Fettig’s situation is a case in point.

Washington Trucking Ass'n v. Employment Security Department

192 Wash. App. 621 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 9, 2016

The tortious interference claim clearly does not meet the third prong because it involves a request for monetary damages and would require extensive member participation to resolve it.5 Resolution of each member’s claim … The plaintiffs claimed that the taxes were discriminatory in violation of the dormant commerce clause and the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution. Id.

City of Seattle v. Larkin

10 Wash. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1973

Yakima, 52 Wn.2d 617 , 328 P.2d 873 (1958), and the burden of establishing the invalidity of the ordinance rests upon the party challenging its constitutionality. Letterman v. Tacoma, 53 Wn.2d 294 , 333 P.2d 650 (1958). … Under such a set of reasonable assumptions, the ordinance would vitally affect the safety and welfare of Seattle citizens and thus have a rational basis and be clearly constitutional.

Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court · Feb 19, 2026

As a preliminary matter, the rule immunizes tortfeasors from liability where the decedent died by suicide. … The rule is also harmful in many ways, such as by immunizing tortfeasors and perpetuating dangerous misconceptions about mental health.

Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co.

174 P.3d 60 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 27, 2007

Requested Records ¶ 23 Agencies bear the burden of establishing that a particular public disclosure exemption applies. RCW 42.56.550(1). … phrases refer to the last antecedent, absent a comma before the qualifying phrase.

Bombardi v. Pochel's Appliance & TV Co.

9 Wash. App. 797 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 16, 1973

We hold there was substantial evidence to support both challenged requirements necessary to establish strict liability. … the body of the instruction, since the jury was clearly instructed that prolonged use could be considered, but that factor alone was not enough to establish that the product was not defective.

Gould v. McCormick

75 Wash. 61 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 19, 1913

It is contended that the court erred in entering a judgment establishing and foreclosing the lien. … In that case it was held that, where nonlienable items had been wilfully included in the lien notice to such an amount that, when taken in connection with the facts and circumstances of the case, clearly established bad faith

Olympic Pipe Line Co. v. Thoeny

101 P.3d 430 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 23, 2004

A statute is presumed to be constitutional unless its unconstitutionality clearly appears. Moses Lake School Dist. No. 161 v. Big Bend Cmty. … And although the State enjoys a sovereign immunity from payment of interest, unless it places itself in a position of liability by contract or statute, [19] private entities (including Olympic) do not enjoy this immunity.

Keilhamer v. West Coast Telephone Co.

11 Wash. 2d 24 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1941

Respondent called three witnesses who qualified as experts in telephone work and in the installation of electrical and telephone equipment. … Appellant’s position is clearly untenable.

Thomas Reger, V Amazon.com, Services Llc

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 9, 2026

Reger asserts that his complaint alleges multiple facts supporting the elements of his CPA claim and Amazon’s actions are not immunized by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. … But assuming this could qualify as an injury under the CPA, as to Reger, it is not caused by mis-portrayal of a “standard residential-grade outlet (model ‘279-S00’),” which, to that point, Reger had never ordered.

State v. White

168 P.3d 459 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 4, 2007

The record clearly shows that Mr. White had an open invitation for which he was neither required nor expected to inform his mother or Mr. … Deputy Artz was clearly investigating.

Ashwell Law v. University of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 7, 2025

time if the court determines that . . . the action 3 or appeal—(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 4 or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Claims are “clearly baseless” when that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or 10 “delusional.” Id. at 32–33 (Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).

State v. Collins

110 Wash. 2d 253 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1988

presents the question whether the element of "entering or remaining unlawfully" in our first degree burglary statute, RCW 9A.52.020, is satisfied where the accused receives an invitation to the premises which is not expressly qualified … We do conclude, however, that the arrangement between Schantek and his employer clearly rendered certain presence inappropriate and thus beyond the limits of the employer's consent and Schantek's *261 knowledge.

Wayland v. Hughes

43 Wash. 441 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1906

It clearly appears that the fundamental purpose was to organize with students of the Seattle high school. … White, 82 Ind. 278 , in which the supreme court of Indiana held that the officers and trustees of Purdue University, an institution controlled and supported by the state, could not require an applicant, otherwise qualified

Hansen v. Wightman

14 Wash. App. 78 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 4, 1975

The retainer agreement which was offered by the plaintiffs and accepted by the defendants clearly pertains only to representation of the father in his capacity as guardian for the child. … It is not that of the most highly skilled, nor is it that of the average member of the profession or trade, since those who have less than median or average skill may still be competent and qualified.