Case law

Kovacs v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.

Washington Supreme Court · Jul 14, 2016

The Department ofLabor and Industries initially found that Kovacs qualified for benefits, which he began to receive. … Read in isolation, it does not clearly establish whether the statute oflimitations begins to run on the day of the injury or the next day.

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

State v. Messenger

8 Wash. App. 829 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 24, 1973

Ron Dixon’s testimony concerning defendant’s proposal that they kill each other’s wife was clearly admissible to show intent to commit murder. … While this testimony was part of the context of his meeting with this lady, the solicitations themselves do not go toward establishing any ingredient of the offense.

State v. Pulfrey

86 P.3d 790 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2004

qualified for diversion. … Testimony at the ensuing suppression hearing established that although Thomas had once been listed by police as a gang member affiliate, his name had since been removed from the list. Id.

State v. Wallin

105 P.3d 1037 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 7, 2005

Wallin frequented the establishment, lingering to chat with the girl, and bringing her cards and gifts. … The court sentenced Wallin to life without the possibility of parole, finding that because of his 1994 conviction, the current convictions qualified him as a persistent offender. Wallin appeals.

Gonzalez v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 28, 2021

If only a 13 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing 14 party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 15 appropriate markings in the margins … This provision is not intended to modify 9 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 10

Schlosser v. Bethel School District

183 Wash. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 26, 2014

If a teacher’s performance is not satisfactory, the school must establish a probationary period of 60 school days. … The District argues that the evidence from several educators consistently showed that Schlosser was not qualified and that the Superintendent properly decided against renewing her teaching contract.

Federal Old Line Life Insurance v. Sullivan

33 Wash. 2d 358 · Washington Supreme Court · May 5, 1949

Tressel was respondents’ chief witness, an undoubtedly well-qualified one; also, a candid witness. … Paragraphs 3, 4, and 7 of the contract, hereinbefore quoted, are clearly steps in that direction.

Bernsen v. Big Bend Electric

68 Wash. App. 427 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 2, 1993

Michael Bernsen did not qualify as a new member [of the cooperative]". Michael Bernsen offered to pay the entire cost of the power line extension in advance of installation. … Michael Bernsen contends the unrefuted testimony established its cost at $61,921, not $75,000.

State v. Gregory

158 Wash. 2d 759 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2006

Yet while the determination of historical facts relevant to the establishment of probable cause is subject to the abuse of discretion standard, the legal determination of whether qualifying information as a whole amounts … While Silva clearly exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, Gregory does not establish that his refusal to be recorded or make a formal statement implicates the Fifth Amendment right where there was no testimony

In Re Hart's Estate

149 Wash. 600 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1928

That the testimony was entirely sufficient to establish that purpose, we are satisfied. In Donovan v. … Clearly that was an investment or business venture and they so intended it. In the present case there was no business venture or investment. They simply improved the home Mrs.

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.

Northwest Wholesale, Inc. v. Pac Organic Fruit, LLC

184 Wash. 2d 176 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 10, 2015

Division One further explained, “Section 365 is clearly not applicable to the executory portion of the partnership contract! … The WALLCA clearly protects the voluntary association rights of nondebtor LLC members.

Harris v. Drake

116 Wash. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 18, 2003

Documents that A has prepared in anticipation of the litigation would be within the qualified immunity in his own suit but would be freely discoverable by defendant on a subpoena duces tecum issued in connection with the … We might well reach the opposite result if the record clearly showed that both counsel participated in the phone call to Randolph, or that both counsel clearly stipulated on the record in open court that a person with authority

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance

142 Wash. 2d 654 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2000

Although the parties do not dispute this clause clearly establishes a property damage aggregate limit, this clause appears in the underlying policy, not CU’s supplemental policy. … Our rule in Prier is clearly applicable where, as here, the damage amount was established or could be ascertained with certainty based upon the facts before the court.

Knapke v. PeopleConnect Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 10, 2021

, 3 Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, (9th Cir. 2009)). 4 “The prototypical service qualifying for [CDA] immunity is an online messaging board 5 (or bulletin board) on which Internet subscribers … In this 22 context, Classmates is the content creator and not entitled to immunity under the CDA.

Williams v. Lawson

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 30, 2024

Castro, 833 F.3d at 1067 (considering a jury’s verdict and qualified immunity on a 13 Fourteenth Amendment claim). … Qualified Immunity 22 Because the Eighth Amendment claims fail on their merits, the Court does reach the 23 question of qualified immunity.

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

Coral Construction Co. v. King County

729 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 4, 1989

evidence provides the “exceedingly persuasive justification” required to support the gender-based remedy imposed by the county’s WBE set-aside program, see AGC, 813 F.2d at 939-40, and identifies the past discrimination clearly … The county may waive or reduce the MWBE preferences if qualified MWBE’s are not available, or if a bidding MWBE’s higher price is not attributable to the effect of past discrimination.

Regan v. Department of Licensing

130 Wash. App. 39 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 23, 2005

App. at 856 . ¶33 Assuming, without deciding, that the statute’s definition of “bail bond agent” is vague, the record establishes that, as in Keene , common knowledge and understanding of the bail bond profession clearly … Former RCW 18.185.170(5) provided: [T]he owner or qualified agent of a bail bond agency is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if he or she employs any person to perform the duties of a bail bond agent without the employee having