Case law

Seattle Times Co. v. Serko

170 Wash. 2d 581 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 18, 2010

¶18 In order to prevail in a challenge to the production of records under the PRA, a party must establish a specific exemption that bars production of the requested records. … Moreover, a party opposing the production of public records must establish that production would “clearly not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparably damage any person, or would substantially and

North Western Lumber Co. v. Chehalis County

25 Wash. 95 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1901

S., at the port of San Francisco, and was assessed and paid taxes in the state of California; that plaintiff was a corporation organized under the laws of California and qualified to do business in the state of Washington … Ct. 38), a municipal ordinance of the city of Mew Orleans to establish the rate of license for professions, callings, and other business, which assessed and directed to be collected from persons owning and running towboats

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.

In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hankin

116 Wash. 2d 293 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1991

He has not been qualified to practice law for more than 5 years since his initial suspension, October 28, 1985. … is inappropriate.'" 25 In this case, we are not clearly persuaded to vary from the Board's recommendation.

Waremart, Inc. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc.

139 Wash. 2d 623 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1999

Clearly the legislature was not required to go further, and we think it has not done so.” State ex rel. Case, 81 Wash. at 646-47 (emphasis added). … Qualifying an initiative for the ballot is not constitutionally required to be an effortless process. See, e.g., Const, art.

Harbour Village Apartments v. City of Mukilteo

139 Wash. 2d 604 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1999

Clearly, they are engaged in the business of renting dwelling units. 10 Under the plain language of RCW 35A.82.020, Mukilteo’s authority to “impose excises for regulation or revenue” for “all . . . kinds of business . . . … As the RDU fee meets the legitimate purposes of both .revenue raising and regulation, it cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary, thus it cannot be shown to violate federal equal protection or our State’s privileges and immunities

Terhune v. A. H. Robins Co.

90 Wash. 2d 9 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1978

The plaintiffs' doctor could not remember clearly whether he had read the warning about the danger of perforation, but testified that in any event he was fully aware of the danger when he made the insertion. … However, it has become a well-established rule that in such cases, the duty of the manufacturer to warn of dangers involved in use of a product is satisfied if he gives adequate warning to the physician who prescribes it.

Weatherhead v. United States

112 F. Supp. 2d 1058 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 10, 2000

Upon release of the Extradition Letter, the issue certified by the Supreme Court on appeal was clearly moot. … waived the government’s immunity from interest when it enacted Title VII.

In re the Personal Restraint of Crabtree

141 Wash. 2d 577 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 14, 2000

The Aho case is a subsequent change in the law that may qualify as “good cause” for granting the petition. … And that, I remember the night clearly because that wa. . . the kids went to their dad’s for a week, and they came back that day and he had to babysit and the next day I was going out to my mother’s and he was up about, I

State v. Norlin

951 P.2d 1131 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1998

If it was established, we may affirm Norlin's conviction. See Sprague v. … established a battered child syndrome."); State v.

Hawkins v. Front Street Cable Railway Co.

16 L.R.A. 808 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1892

There follow several lines in the text, however, which qualify the quotation and make it clearly the law when applied to the cases intended to be covered hyit. … Now time is not considered in establishing liability for injuries, except that when what are claimed to be effects of an injury appear at a period remote from the injury the proximateness of the cause is more difficult to

Almhana v. Trestle Creek LLC

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

If only a 8 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing 9 party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 10 markings in the margins … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 21 may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides for production 1 without prior privilege review.

State v. Gosser

33 Wash. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 16, 1982

However, the defendant could not establish which jurors, if any, saw the defendant at that time. The record does not make clear when this occurred. The motion was denied. … Reed, C.J., and Worswick, J., concur. 1 See Annot., 72 A.L.R.3d 895 (1976), for a discussion of law enforcement officers as qualified jurors in criminal cases. 2 RCW 9A.28.020 states in part: "Criminal attempt. (1) A person

Matter of Firestorm 1991

916 P.2d 411 · Washington Supreme Court · May 16, 1996

The Fisons decision clearly sets forth the principles trial courts are to follow in fashioning appropriate sanctions. … This record does not conclusively establish what DNR knew or whether information gathered by Mr. Buske or others was forwarded or not.

Spokane Co. v. State Ex Rel. Co. Comrs.

966 P.2d 305 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1998

An error of law is "an `error in applying the law to the facts as pleaded and established.'" … Elected prosecutors, however, are clearly elected for a specified term of office.

Manna Funding, LLC v. Kittitas County

173 Wash. App. 879 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 28, 2013

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, [or] regulation ... of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The request for costs is denied because the costs requested do not qualify as court costs.

Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Productization, Inc.

74 Wash. App. 197 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 11, 1994

The trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact establish that Pope was working on its own land, and that it was not constructing an improvement for the purpose of selling the improved property. … However, the superior court clearly has jurisdiction over cases of this type. Const, art. 4, § 6 (amend. 6); Pedersen v. Klinkert, 56 Wn.2d 313, 320 , 352 P.2d 1025 (1960).

Detention Of C.A.A.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 30, 2024

Considerations involved with the SVPA—that is, whether a person qualifies as a sexually violent predator—are very different than whether a person should be committed for treatment of behavioral health disorders under the … And former RCW 10.77.068 clearly contemplates that the state hospital will have 14 days to offer admission to a defendant committed under former RCW 10.77.086(5).

Twohy v. Slate Creek Mining Co.

31 Wash. 2d 668 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1948

That this issue may be more clearly presented, the pleadings may be amended.” *682 Rem. Rev. … established.

Maytown Sand And Gravel, Resp/cross-app v. Thurston County, App/cross-resp

198 Wash. App. 560 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 4, 2017

pleaded some affirmative defenses and defenses, including that some or all of the claims were barred by statutes of limitations, failure to exhaust remedies, lack of standing, res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, and immunity … App. at 87. 21 46895-6-II Accordingly, we do not “overturn the jury’s verdict unless it is clearly unsupported by substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that, if believed