Case law

State v. Collier

23 Wash. 2d 678 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1945

Furthermore, it is well established that rulings of a trial court as to matters of joinder and continuance will not be held erroneous on appeal, except in cases where abuse of discretion is manifest. … This is the long-established rule in this state. It is said in State v.

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.

Gray v. Pierce County Housing Authority

97 P.3d 26 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 31, 2004

PCHA clearly does not fall within the ambit of RCW 59.18.040(1). … The Grays gave up all claims to attorney fees when they settled with PCHA, leaving Gibson as the only class member qualifying under the fee-shifting provisions of RCW 59.18.290(1).

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.

Brower v. State

137 Wash. 2d 44 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1998

The power to enact contingent legislation has clearly been recognized. … The election provisions were clearly encompassed within the title.

Kane v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America

3 Wash. 2d 355 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1940

It is the established rule in this and many other states that, where a provision of a policy of insurance is capable of two meanings, or is fairly susceptible of *360 two constructions, that meaning and construction most … The oral testimony received by the court to make clear what the parties contemplated when the word “infection” was used in the certificate was clearly admissible.

Ellis v. William Penn Life Assurance Co. of America

124 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1994

WAC 284-23-400 through -460 establish the purpose of the regulations and the duties of insurers and their agents and brokers. … The estoppel issue in those cases is distinguishable from that in these cases, where wrongful acts were committed by both the insureds and the insurers, and the wrongful acts committed by the insurers are clearly in violation

Matthews v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

179 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Oct 23, 2001

In order to establish standing to bring and pursue a lawsuit, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) a causal connection between that injury and the defendant’s alleged conduct, and (3) a … any State, or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

State v. Sibert

168 Wash. 2d 306 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 25, 2010

The term “every” in Brown was clearly intended to mean “an” element. In fact the Brown majority cited Smith and Byrd for that very proposition. … *330 ¶54 Omitting even a single essential element from “to convict” instructions is immune from harmless error analysis.

Geiger v. Tacoma Ry. & Power Co.

141 F. 169 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Washington · Oct 14, 1905

” it as one of the courts composing the judicial system, and to clearly define its jurisdiction. … Western judicial district of Washington shall continue in office, and be such officers in said Western District until the expiration of their respective terms of office, or until their successors shall be duly appointed and qualified

Guarino v. Guarino

29 Wash. 2d 314 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1947

(It may here be parenthetically noted that the testimony of a qualified real-estate appraiser that the home property could be sold for seven thousand five hundred dollars was not disputed by any other qualified witness. … Subsequently, he qualified this by saying: “Quite a number of times she been sleeping on the davenport and never come to sleep with me.”

United States v. State of Washington

384 F. Supp. 312 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 22, 1974

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 … In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on file herein the court has found, held and hereby confirms that the evidence in this case clearly establishes *342 that both the Quinault and Yakima Tribes for a considerable

State v. Hieb

39 Wash. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 24, 1984

Thus, the statements were too remote in time from the alleged events to qualify as excited utterances. Only Shawna's first statement was properly admitted at trial. 2. … The prosecution bears the burden of establishing this predicate. Roberts , at 74-75.

Myers v. Exchange National Bank

96 Wash. 244 · Washington Supreme Court · May 11, 1917

Both questions were resolved in favor of the immunity of the national bank. … It was held that the- national bank act, § 5228, supra, authorized national banks to deliver “special deposits,” implying clearly that a national bank, as a part of its legitimate business, may receive such “special deposits

Peelers Company v. Wendt

260 F. Supp. 193 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 29, 1966

That all of the facts as above stated were found by the jury is established by the special and general verdicts. … In any event it would not require new trial unless the claimed error was clearly prejudicial.