Case law

Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington

125 Wash. 2d 243 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 22, 1994

Indeed, the Legislature’s response to our decision in In re Rosier, supra, establishes that the Public Records Act contains no general "vital governmental functions” exemption. … Two state statutes qualify as "other statutes” in the present context, although neither justifies withholding the grant proposal in its entirety.

State Of Washington, V. Jodie Dean

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 3, 2021

Wentz established that the ordinary meaning of “fenced area” clearly includes an area that is completely surrounded by a fence. 149 Wn.2d at 352. The court in Engel did not contradict this holding. … There is no indication that the court intended to establish a broad rule requiring that a completely enclosed area be the curtilage of a building to constitute a “fenced area.”

State v. Estes

Washington Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2017

It reminded that "a court should keep in mind that the principles we have stated do not establish mechanical rules .... … What qualifies as a deadly weapon differs under each question. A "deadly weapon" for purposes of second degree assault means "any ...

Yeamans v. Knowles

117 Wash. App. 593 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 14, 2003

Paternity was established through a parentage action. Knowles is a recovering alcoholic and has had limited ability, due to her alcoholism, to care for Brianna until recently. … The court, however, also expressed concerns about the Grubers’ contentious behavior and found them marginally qualified as caregivers.

Brown v. Brown

157 Wash. App. 803 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 23, 2010

He testified that sometime in 2003 or 2004, Dottie arranged for them to meet with a “representative of a reverse mortgage company” 3 who “explained the whole thing about the reverse mortgage and what you had to do to qualify … And no other section clearly contains private “rights-creating” language.

State v. Music

79 Wash. 2d 699 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1971

That norm was clearly met and applied by the trial court in the instant case. Appellant’s objection is without merit. … The test for setting aside the verdict of a criminal jury is clearly established: [T]he verdict of the jury in a criminal case will be set aside and a new trial granted to the defendant, because of an error occurring during

Gilbert v. Seatco Mfg. Co.

98 F. 208 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · Dec 11, 1899

They were not even qualified to become directors. … The authorities bearing upon these general principles are well settled, and are clearly stated in Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman’s Palace-Car Co., 139 U. S. 24—59, 11 Sup. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55 , and Bank v.

Brown v. Sager

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 16, 2024

No. 14 at 13–16.2 16 Defendants also claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity for damages resulting from any 17 alleged constitutional violations, that they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for any … Brown also includes 9 a heading, without corresponding elaboration, that he “does not challenge qualified immunity from 10 damages[.]” Id. at 13. And last, Mr.

State v. Woo Won Choi

55 Wash. App. 895 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 6, 1989

Most importantly, he was able to clearly express his defense that he believed the victim was reaching for a gun, and that he shot wildly without intent to kill. … Former RCW 9A.36.010 requires that in order to establish first degree assault, the intent to kill must be shown.

In Re Yim

139 Wash. 2d 581 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1999

Pursuant to RCW 70.77.126 and 70.77.236, in order for an explosive device to qualify as a "firework" it must have been classified by the appropriate federal or state government officials. … The affiant's failure to specifically state that Donald Yokley did not possess an explosives license, when one can easily draw this inference from the affidavit, clearly falls within the category of "negligence" or "innocent

Warner v. Citizens' Bank of Anacortes

19 F.2d 947 · District Court, W.D. Washington · May 19, 1927

. § 9651) clearly has no application. Section 60b (Comp. … stands in the “shoes” of the bankrupt, and that having sold the property, as it had a right to do, without notice, as was likewise the right of the bankrupt while he was owner, the trustee, adopting the sale and securing the qualified

Randall & Denise Olsen v. Chelan County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 27, 2023

Finally, a “clearly erroneous” determination under (d) requires us to apply the law to facts. Id. … The provision states that an STR “shall be considered lawfully established and existing and allowed to continue to operate as a legally nonconforming use” if the owner demonstrates that seven requirements are met.

In re Pers. Restraint of Yates

Washington Supreme Court · Mar 14, 2013

Yates's petition, however, clearly alleges only a facial challenge to the process of death qualification. … The second and third of these statements clearly do not establish a closure. With respect to the second statement, evidence of absence is not evidence of exclusion.

Baker v. State of Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 6, 2025

11 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 12 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant 13 who is immune … Leave to Amend 10 The Ninth Circuit has “established that a pro se litigant bringing a civil rights suit must 11 have an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome

Fisheries Engineers, Inc.,, V. State Of Washington

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 7, 2023

Thus, Tappel is required to show an invasion of a legally protected interest to establish an injury in fact. Id. … He does not establish that forest practices engineers who work for the Department of Natural Resources serve the same constituency that he does.

Strickland v. State of Washington Seattle Central College

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 2019

are entitled to qualified immunity).) 19 3 (See id. §§ V.C (arguing that Seattle Central is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. … Strickland must first establish a 19 prima facie case of discrimination. Odima, 991 F.2d at 599. To establish such a case, 20 Ms.

Foote v. Grant

55 Wash. 2d 797 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1960

Goodman, supra , but there are many cases where it is clearly a matter of law for the court. In cases such as Nelson v. … The circumstances before us very clearly demonstrate the necessity of public protection.

Anderson v. Island County

81 Wash. 2d 312 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1972

The use of property must actually be established prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance to qualify as a nonconforming use thereafter. State ex rel. Smilanich v. McCollum, 62 Wn.2d 602 , 384 P.2d 358 (1963). … As operation of the batching plant itself was a violation of the interim zoning ordinance, the board of commissioners clearly abused its discretion in perpetuating the inconsistent use of the tract of land in question.

State v. O'NEILL

967 P.2d 985 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 27, 1998

The instruction's last paragraph plainly states that the defense is established if these two elements are met. … The "reasonable amount of persuasion to overcome reluctance" language is clearly designed for the typical undercover or sting operation.

State v. Price

126 Wash. App. 617 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2005

But Price was required to establish likely prejudice; the burden is not on the court. … Sheaffer, was established by introducing the 1998 criminal complaint, the injury was established by the deputy’s testimony, and Price’s culpability was established by sufficient evidence in his statement on plea of guilty