Case law

Estate of Michael Dempsey v. Spokane Washington Hospital Co., LLC

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 14, 2017

The work product privilege provides a qualified immunity from this general discovery rule. Harris v. Drake, 152 Wn.2d 480, 486, 99 P.3d 872 (2004). CR 26(b) memorializes this immunity. … to establish a substantial need and 7 No. 34573-4-III In re Estate ofDempsey (dissent) undue hardship before reviewing the communication.

In Re the Sterilization of Hendrickson

12 Wash. 2d 600 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1942

Clearly, such a provision does not meet the requirements of due process. … The persons affected by the remainder are permitted to question the constitutionality of the invalid part even though it does not apply to them, since that is an essential element in establishing that the remainder is legally

State v. Cherry Point Fish Co.

72 Wash. 420 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 11, 1913

The fact of selling being established, the law supplies the element of intent.” … Clearly this view of the requirements of the statute is as favorable to the appellants as a proper construction of the same warrants.

Adams v. Richland Clinic, Inc.

37 Wash. App. 650 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 24, 1984

(italics ours)); RCW 4.24.290. 6 In addition, while trial courts possess a broad discretion in determining whether an expert is qualified, Harris v. … Clearly, Mrs. Adams underwent major surgery because of her belief it would obviate dieting. While Smith v.

Graves v. Jones

170 Wash. 552 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1932

Aylmore’s subscription seems to have been only a nominal subscription to qualify him to become one of the trustees of the corporation, the articles of incorporation having provided for thr.ee trustees. … It may be conceded that there are decisions which indicate exceptions to this broadly expressed view; but it seems clear to us that the facts of this case show it to be clearly within this broad view, and not within any of

Bailey v. Carver

47 Wash. 2d 153 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1955

Assignment of error No. 3 complains that instruction No. 14, because of its peculiar wording, could be understood by the jury as establishing a duty on the part of appellant alone. … However, it is suggested that upon a second trial this instruction, if given, be more clearly worded to preserve to appellant his right of way under RCW 46.60.170.

Davies v. Ball

64 Wash. 292 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1911

This can now be laid down as the established rule. … The evidence before us is clearly sufficient to put these respondents to their defense.

In re the Personal Restraint of Turay

153 Wash. 2d 44 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2004

(emphasis added). 10 ¶40 The literal language of Young established a bright line rule: the State must prove a recent overt act only when the individual is not incarcerated on the day the commitment petition is filed. … Clearly if filing successive PRPs is a delaying tactic, it is an intentional act in bad faith, not a good faith claim that an intervening development now justifies an argument that may not have been supported before. ¶46

State v. Lewis

166 P.3d 786 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 28, 2007

It then ruled that the information on the documents, in conjunction with Wilkins' testimony, established that the previous convictions were Lewis's. … Expert testimony is admissible under ER 702 if (1) the witness qualifies as an expert and (2) the expert's testimony would be helpful to the trier of fact. State v.

United States v. Weekley

790 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Apr 3, 1992

Clearly, the Washington second degree burglary statute includes the generic elements specified in Taylor . … Taylor also establishes that this determination is categorical, and is made by looking at the statute, the charge, and the essential elements, as set forth in jury instructions.

Allen v. American Land Research

95 Wash. 2d 841 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 23, 1981

The Brokers Act clearly controls entry into the occupation of selling real estate. … Furthermore, the conclusions of law establish that "defendants" violated the CPA.

State v. Smith

3 Wash. 2d 543 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1940

Clearly, in neither *551 case could the complaint be considered as a part of the res gestae. … Appellant contends that, if the trial court had more carefully examined this witness on voir dire, it would *552 have discovered that the child was not qualified.

Hayes v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

34 Wash. 2d 666 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1949

This order clearly indicates that appellant’s motions were directed only to cross-appellant’s first cause of action. … In the course of the opinion, the court said: “A railroad company employing a servant who happens to be a public officer acquires no immunity from such employment.

Pierce County Office of Involuntary Commitment v. Western State Hospital

97 Wash. 2d 264 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1982

RCW 71.05.150 gives the mental health professional discretion in deciding (1) whether to detain a person who qualifies for detention under that section and (2) which evaluation and treatment facility he will petition for … Statutory provisions referred to above clearly reflect a legislative intent that the treatment given pursuant to this act be adequate. There was a comparable legislative intent evidenced in Clark County.

State v. Thomas

208 P.3d 1107 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2009

Acknowledging errors in the instructions, we applied the test established in Neder v. … noted that "`a consistent pattern of official racial discrimination' is not `a necessary predicate to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause,'" and that "`[a] single invidiously discriminatory governmental act' is not `immunized

Edelman v. State

248 P.3d 581 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2011

Indeed, it clearly does not require processing of incomplete forms, but instead requires that the applicant be given the opportunity to complete the form in a timely manner. 42 U.S.C. § 15483 (b)(4)(B). … A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought. RCW 4.84.350(1) (emphasis added).

Stewart v. Mason County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2023

dismiss 17 the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is: (1) frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 18 claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 19 immune … Dec. 8, 8 2006) (Muslim prisoner does not have the clearly established right to a specific halal meat diet 9 under the Free Exercise clause, RLUIPA, or Equal Protection clause). 10 Plaintiff’s present complaint

Sedlacek v. Hillis

3 P.3d 767 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 10, 2000

Greene was clearly an independent contractor. Under WAC 162-16-160(11) independent contractors will not be counted as employees. … Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy.

Washington Trails Ass'n v. United States Forest Service

935 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 12, 1996

Clearly the Langille/Ju-niper Trails project does not exist in isolation if the additional proposed ORV trail projects in the area may all be connected. … The court concludes that the USFS is clearly obligated to consider the impact of proposals for connecting trails on the user allocation issue. 9 *1125 c.

Hacker v. Barnes

166 Wash. 558 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 9, 1932

It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one’s body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established … We are clearly of the opinion that the statute here under attack constitutes a valid exercise by the legislature of the police power of the state, and that the trial court correctly sustained respondents’ demurrer to appellant