Case law

State v. Kronich

131 Wash. App. 537 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 7, 2006

Although the rule does not specifically require the testimony of a custodian or other qualified witness, some courts have read the requirement into the rule. See, e.g., United States v. … Kronich’s case had been in the nature of, “I have searched the DOL database, and no record of reinstatement was located as of‘x’ date,” it would clearly pass the post-Crawford rulings enunciated in Rueda-Rivera and N.M.K.

Estate of Kelly v. Falin

127 Wash. 2d 31 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1995

Liability for service to an obviously intoxicated patron clearly fits within the exceptions to the common-law rule. … The repeal of the dramshop act reintroduced the common-law rule but did not grant commercial vendors absolute immunity.

Miller v. Treat

57 Wash. 2d 524 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1960

Taug , in regard to the guest's contributory negligence was clearly unnecessary to the decision, and cannot be cited as a rule of law in this state. In the recent case of White v. … A multiplicity of suits would thus operate to qualify all of the parties as being the kind of independent witnesses contemplated by the statute.

State v. Wittenbarger

124 Wash. 2d 467 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1994

The defense agrees that certificates of working order under section (c)(1) are clearly discretionary and need only be used when there is no live testimony. … were used in testing they were correct and correctly used, (3) that the operator was qualified and performed the test correctly, and (4) that the results are accurate.

Thiel v. Miller

122 Wash. 52 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1922

This definition contains several elements, each of which, as above suggested, must be explained and qualified in its practical application. … However that may be, it is clear that, by appellants’ cross-complaint, they, in any event, clearly made the whole controversy one of equitable cognizance determinable by the court without a jury.

Ago

Washington Attorney General Reports · Feb 1, 2010

Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Seattle , 101 Wash. 487 , 493 , 172 P. 554 (1918) (considering whether an institution was a benevolent and charitable institution entitled to immunity from tort liability). … In 1993, the legislature established the Commission on Ethics in Government and Campaign Practices and directed it to study and make recommendations regarding, among other issues, ethics in government.

State v. Parker

139 Wash. 2d 486 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1999

Ed. 210 (1948) (a person does not, “by mere presence in a suspected car, lose[ ] immunities from search of his person to which he would otherwise be entitled.”). … Therefore, no Gunwall analysis is needed in this case because we apply established principles of state constitutional jurisprudence. See White, 135 Wn.2d at 769 .

Ekman v. United Film Service, Inc.

53 Wash. 2d 652 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1959

Nor did this contract deprive the privilege of engaging in that vocation and work for which he was trained and which he was qualified to perform. … Respondent failed to establish that he had fulfilled the conditions of the contract which granted to him the reserve commissions.

Andrew Leitner v. City Of Tacoma

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 24, 2020

This is clearly a scrivener’s error and should have been RCW 51.32.185. 4 No. 52908-4-II Leitner prior to December 31, 2014 and saw no signs of cardiovascular distress … The party challenging the decision in an appeal must establish a prima facie case for the relief sought on appeal, and they must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.

Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington

166 Wash. 2d 27 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2009

is instructive as to practices that, while not specifically prohibited by the CAA, are so much like the proscribed conduct that they fall within the broader scope of the CPA. [12] This is not a case where the legislature clearly … A plaintiff must establish each element to bring a successful CPA claim.

DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland

246 P.3d 822 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 24, 2011

The Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, "clearly contemplates that challenges to comprehensive plan amendments [and development regulations] must be brought before the [Board]." Coffey v. … Torrance, 136 Wash.2d at 793-794 , 966 P.2d 891 . ¶ 18 The GMA establishes the exclusive means to review the City's amendments to its comprehensive plan and zoning code.

Port of Seattle v. Equitable Capital Group, Inc.

127 Wash. 2d 202 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1995

Because of this rationale no inquiry into knowledge is required to qualify the owner, although knowledge will affect the weight to be accorded his opinion. ... … That testimony of value was clearly in violation of the principle enunciated by this court in State v.

La Clair v. United States

184 F. 128 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Washington · Jun 18, 1910

asserted, and not denied, that this petitioner, in consideration of the surrender of his patent to lands on the Yakima reservation on account of having had a prior allotment on the Puyallup reservation, was thereafter to be immune … This clearly shows the intention to distinguish these Indians from those of the Yakimas who had theretofore resided on the reservation. While the report of Col.

Escalante v. Sentry Insurance

49 Wash. App. 375 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 28, 1987

This distinction clearly has nothing to do with whether a direct consumer relationship is a prerequisite to a suit under the CPA. … As one authority correctly points out, [t]he various state insurance laws that establish the requirements for uninsured motorist insurance are clearly intended to benefit all insureds, and the attainment of this goal certainly

Kiser v. Douglas County

41 L.R.A.N.S. 1066 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 14, 1912

Archibald, supra, the prescriptive right of the public to patronize public wells is recognized and clearly discussed by Lord Blackburn. … They say: *248 “The title of the former owner is not extinguished; but is so qualified that it can only be enjoyed subject to that easement.

Haselwood v. Bremerton Ice Arena, Inc.

137 Wash. App. 872 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 10, 2007

Contractors are sufficiently pro *885 tected without carving out an exception to the rule that public property is immune to liens. f 35 Accordingly, the extent of RV Associates’ possible lien is limited to the improvements … Furthermore, when we read the mechanics’lien statute as a whole, it clearly establishes a single lien that attaches to the realty through the improvement. 5 *886 ¶39 RCW 60.04.011(5) defines improvements as: (a) Constructing

State of Washington v. Anthony Laurence Wright

493 P.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 24, 2021

Rehabilitation does not qualify as a mitigating factor under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A RCW (SRA) Fixing appropriate penalties for crime is a legislative function.4 The legislature’s … Wright “First, a trial court may not base an exceptional sentence on factors necessarily considered by the Legislature in establishing the standard sentence range.

Goodwin v. American Surety Co. of New York

190 Wash. 457 · Washington Supreme Court · May 25, 1937

On November 23, 1921, which was a year after his wife’s death, Goodwin was appointed, and qualified, as guardian of the person and estate of his son, the plaintiff. … What became of the rest of the money so deposited does not clearly appear from the record, but, as we read the evidence, it is fairly inferable that at least a part of it was applied on the unsecured indebtedness owing to

Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

186 Wash. App. 32 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2015

WATER AVAILABILITY ¶19 The County argues that the Board erred when it concluded that the County’s measures to protect water availability were clearly erroneous. … Hirst argues that even if there were “an ‘Ecology interpretation’ expressing a ‘legal conclusion’ that the [Nook-sack Rule] ‘was not intended to apply to permit exempt with *62 drawals,’ as the County claims, it would not immunize

State v. Zwicker

105 Wash. 2d 228 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1986

The City has no affirmative duty to establish that the defendant was afforded an opportunity to prove his sobriety. … The refusal is relevant under circumstances where it can qualify or disprove contentions raised by the defendant. See State v. Demos, 94 Wn.2d 733 , 619 P.2d 968 (1980).