Case law

Leonard v. McMenamins Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 15, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 12 || the producing party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 13 || markings in the margins … This provision 24 || is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or 25 || agreement that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. BNSF Railway Co.

228 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2017

In other words, preemption clearly applies where a claim will directly affect railroad transportation. … Before holding that the result of the earlier consideration has been repealed or qualified, it is reasonable for a court to insist on the legislature’s using language showing that it has made a considered determination to

State v. Ware

58 Wash. 526 · Washington Supreme Court · May 31, 1910

The rule, I believe, was unknown to the Common law, but is now established in this country. … This-exhausted his peremptories, and he was forced to go to trial with the juror Stocking who, in my judgment, had clearly disqualified himself.

Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Department of Ecology

119 Wash. 2d 761 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1992

Ecology has authority to categorically exempt certain actions from the EIS requirement, but major actions do not qualify for such exemptions. RCW 43.21C.110. 4. … There must be sufficient evidence to establish the claim.

Logan v. Ahlbrecht (In Re Logan)

195 B.R. 769 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 2, 1996

Carter, 83 Wash.2d 136 , 516 P.2d 767 (1973) clearly demonstrates the broad parameters of Washington’s interpretation of consumer goods. … The court rejected that argument, pointing out that Washington ease law has clearly established that the intention of the annexor is the most important factor of consideration and that such intent is determined from the circumstances

Verdier v. Sample

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 23, 2022

the Plaintiff failed to point to 24 1 sufficient evidence to support his federal constitutional claims, that Deputy Walker was entitled 2 to qualified … immunity, and that the Washington State Supreme Court has not recognized civil 3 claims for violations of the Washington State Constitution.

Eddie E. Acord, et ux v. Britton K. Pettit, et ux

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 14, 2013

Lang noted, "[a]n established fence has been the common boundary of this line between various past landowners. A survey ... placed the line 100+ feet to the North of this common established fence line." CP at 123. … Lang was clearly a well educated and a very experienced forester. He was then clearly qualified as an expert.

Knipe v. Austin

13 Wash. 189 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 9, 1895

Beside, even the dictum of that case has been substantially qualified by what was said in the case of Hays v. Merchants Bank of Port Townsend, decided March 5, 1896, by the learned judge who wrote it. … The statute cited in the majority opinion shows clearly that whatever the nature of the title of the purchaser, *197 he is entitled to the possession of the property unless the same he in the possession of a tenant holding

Cowan v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad

55 Wash. 2d 615 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1960

The party producing the witness must show he is qualified. Tully v. Mahoning Express Co. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 457 , 119 N. E. (2d) 831, 45 A. L. R. (2d) 1144. … Even if erroneous, it was not prejudicial, because the basic facts of the plaintiff’s case were established by other testimony without the opinion of Kusian as to the concentration of the gas.

State v. Flores

186 P.3d 1038 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2008

Thus, unless an aggravating factor is established solely by the jury verdict or the defendant's stipulation, it cannot be used to support an exceptional sentence. ¶ 57 It is well established that the "clearly too lenient" … The jury's findings alone qualified the offenses as a "major VUCSA" under former RCW 9.94A.535(2)(e).

Sterling v. Feek

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 5, 2023

1 immunity, denied without prejudice Defendants’ motion to dismiss their § 1983 claim based on 2 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(3), and granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss their § 1983 claim based on 42 3 U.S.C. § 503(a)(1). … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person 9 clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a 10 unilateral expectation of it.

State v. Woolfolk

977 P.2d 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 1999

The eventual meeting place, a fast-food restaurant, was established during a second telephone conversation between Braley and Woolfolk. … The court found this evidence insufficient to qualify the defendant as "armed" and struck the sentence enhancement. See id. See also State v.

Public Utility District No. 1 v. Department of Ecology

146 Wash. 2d 778 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2002

As explained, in order to determine whether a change application may be granted under RCW 90.03.380, Ecology must tentatively quantify the right in order to determine whether the right qualifies for a change. … Okanogan Wilderness League is clearly distinguishable, as the water right holder there offered a single, invalid reason for nonuse of the water right at issue. R.D.

Phoenix Development v. City of Woodinville

229 P.3d 800 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 2, 2009

rezones further a number of comprehensive plan policies and therefore bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. ¶ 41 In sum, WMC 21.04.080 requires that the city approve an otherwise qualified … The record establishes that adequate services can be provided to the proposed developments.

Johnson v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

134 Wash. 2d 795 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1998

such evidence, the inflexible exclusionary rule created by the majority is rendered unnecessary and serves only to hobble the fact finder by excluding evidence that should be admitted in those rare cases where relevance clearly … As the Third Circuit held, “the collateral benefit rule cannot be made a springboard from which a plaintiff may go forward with affirmative evidence ... of financial need and then seek immunity from cross-examination regarding

Nelson v. National Fund Raising Consultants, Inc.

120 Wash. 2d 382 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1992

First, DeShazer's argument about the timing of the Nelsons' knowledge is not clearly supported by the record. … Violation of the Franchise Act does not automatically establish a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

Pincus Hueter v. Pederson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 9, 2021

Specifically, 8 Plaintiff did not plead any claims arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal 9 question jurisdiction. Id. at 4. … Legally 4 frivolous claims are those “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” such as claims against 5 defendants who are immune from suit or for infringement of a legal interest that clearly does not 6 exist

Nair v. Copeland

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 24, 2020

The lawsuit is barred by both qualified and prosecutorial immunity. 21 For Defendant Channa Copeland: … Failure to establish, as required for a § 1983 claim, that the Defendant is a governmental 8 actor or that his conduct constituted state action. 9

State of Washington v. Joshua Michael Barnes

196 Wash. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 6, 2016

Barnes includes a doll in the driver's seat would also qualify for theft of a motor vehicle ifwe literally read RCW 46.04.320 and .670. … Barnes parent's immunity from actions brought by a child arising out of the "operation of a motor vehicle."

State v. Eckblad

98 P.3d 1184 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 14, 2004

In February 2003, a state patrol officer saw a seat belt dangling in the window of a traveling 1982 pickup truck, near the head of a clearly unseat-belted passenger. … We caution that we do not hold that the statute is immune from a future due process challenge. It may be unconstitutionally vague as applied to a different case. Cf.