Case law

In re Firestorm 1991

129 Wash. 2d 130 · Washington Supreme Court · May 16, 1996

He had been advised he could not disclose them because they were work product, and petitioners clearly knew he had been so advised because he told them so. … This record does not conclusively establish what DNR knew or whether information gathered by Mr. Buske or others was forwarded or not.

Navlet v. Port of Seattle

194 P.3d 221 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 16, 2008

And in Skinner, 188 F.3d at 141 , as noted the court concluded that phrases "`will continue'" and "`shall remain'" did not clearly and expressly indicate vesting since there was no durational language to qualify the phrases … [The] retirees' eligibility for benefits was qualified because it was subject to [the employer's] reserved right to terminate the plan under which the benefits were provided.

Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane

96 Wash. App. 568 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 13, 1999

In view of these facts, the City has clearly used the three items according to the ordinary meaning of this word. … Evidence that an agency “merely reviewed, evaluated, or referred to the document is insuf *575 ficient to establish ‘use’.” Id. at 231-32. Here much more is involved.

City of Yakima v. Yakima Police & Fire Civil Service Commission

29 Wash. App. 756 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 2, 1981

The judiciary will generally defer to an agency judgment when it interprets its own rules because the agency is best qualified when acting within the ambit of its administrative function. State Utils. & Transp. … Schwartz, Administrative Law § 59 (1976). 10 The court stated in its memorandum opinion: "It is not clearly apparent" the Commission had jurisdiction to respond to Mr. Sloan's demand for an investigation.

Lerum v. Heritage-Crystal Clean Inc

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

If only a portion or 23 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also must 24 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 25 margins … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 20 may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides for production 21 without prior privilege review.

Diane J. Lewis, V. Washington State Department Of Labor And Industries

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 25, 2023

Article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution states: “[n]o law shall be passed granting to any citizen [or] class of citizens . . . privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to … Because Lewis cannot establish marine and land- based workers are similarly situated, her claim fails.

Kimberly Gerlach v. The Cove Apartments

437 P.3d 690 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 18, 2019

The Supreme Court held that Peralta's admission was clearly an admission of intoxication under RCW 5.40.060(1). Peralta, 187 Wn.2d at 899. … Vincenzi was a qualified expert as to the effects of alcohol upon the human body. Dr.

Hurst v. L.G.

78 Wash. App. 420 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 5, 1995

Clearly, this case is moot because L.G. is no longer being detained under the order at issue and thus this court cannot provide effective relief. In re Cross, 99 Wn.2d 373, 377 , 662 P.2d 828 (1983). … These specialists have training and expertise that make them uniquely qualified to investigate and report to the trial court on matters directly at issue in the petition hearing.

Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island

169 P.3d 14 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 11, 2007

matter that qualifies for the award of attorney fees and costs. … The administration of the system so established shall be performed exclusively by the local government. " (Emphasis added.)

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Huizar

76 Wash. App. 676 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 1994

It is now defined in WAC 296-20-01002 as "[Notification by a qualified representative of the department or self-insurer that specific medically necessary treatment, services, or equipment provided for the diagnosis and curative … The lack of a regulatory definition of authorization at the time in question is not determinative because the record clearly establishes as a matter of undisputed fact that Boise Cascade did not in any way approve, authorize

RPEC v. Charles

62 P.3d 470 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2003

This letter contained several qualifiers to which the executive director alerted appellant organizations. … The statutory provisions are clearly referenced in section 906(7).

Taylor v. Burns

12 Wash. 2d 686 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1942

His position as the real proponent of the final report had already been clearly established; he had been afforded a full opportunity to explain and defend his acts; and he will therefore not now be heard to assert a purely … technical claim of immunity from the jurisdiction of the court.

State v. Mason

126 P.3d 34 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 10, 2005

statement fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. [4] The excited utterance exception is a firmly rooted hearsay exception, [5] and thus out-of-court statements made by unavailable witnesses were admissible if they qualified … The court clearly limited the admissibility of this testimony, and in this context, Santoso's statement was not introduced to implicate Mason. Crawford is inapplicable. 5.

Crawford v. Trish

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 10, 2024

Plaintiff would need to show that Tristian is not a 20 citizen of the same state as plaintiff, to establish diversity of citizenship. … And, if plaintiff 21 decides to file an amended complaint, she needs to clearly identify each defendant, and 22 if Blue Goose Market is also a named defendant, plaintiff must establish either federal 23 question jurisdiction

Fahn v. Cowlitz County

93 Wash. 2d 368 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1981

I The majority contends at page 382-83: Since [the regulation of the State Human Rights Commission] prevents preemployment inquiries based on height and weight in virtually all situations, the regulation in effect establishes … In our view, however, the designation of any additional categories of protected persons is clearly a legislative function.

Butler v. OneWest Bank, FSB

550 B.R. 860 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 10, 2015

No genuine issues of material fact exist Appellant attempts to avoid summary judgment on several of these claims by asserting that many of the aforementioned facts have not been established such that no genuine issue of material … Mendelson-Zelter, Inc., 113 Wash.2d 346 , 779 P.2d 697 (1989), for the proposition that "[u]nder Washington law, a party who accepts an instrument as an agent for the owner cannot qualify as a “holder.”

Montgomery v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 30, 2021

At such hearing, the Party designating 13 the information as Confidential Material shall have the burden to establish that Party’s 14 … 3 of this Agreement 18 and Order, the Party shall provide to the Qualified Person a copy of this Agreement and Order and each Qualified Person shall execute a copy of the 19

Boyce v. West

71 Wash. App. 657 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 16, 1993

We do not find a public interest in a private school 7 offering scuba diving instruction to qualified students as an elective course. Upholding the release of Gonzaga does not violate public policy. Mrs. … Negligent instruction and supervision are clearly risks associated with being a student in a scuba diving course and are encompassed by the broad language of the contract. That Mr.

Canal Station North Condominium Ass'n v. Ballard Leary Phase II, LP

179 Wash. App. 289 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 23, 2013

as “affiliates” of the Declarant, and/or pursuant to RCW 19.40.011(7) qualify as “insiders” of Declarant and one another. … We find it worth noting, however, that RCW 64.55.100(1) clearly contemplates waiver if the party seeking arbitration does not make a timely demand as required by the statute.

State v. Curran

116 Wash. 2d 174 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1991

The officer shall inform the person of his or her right to refuse the breath or blood test, and of his or her right to have additional tests administered by any qualified person of his or her choosing as provided in RCW 46.61.506 … The statute and case law clearly distinguish between these two terms in the vehicular homicide context. See State v. Eike, 72 Wn.2d 760, 765 , 435 P.2d 680 (1967); State v. Knowles, 46 Wn.