Case law

Jubitz Corporation, V State Department Of Revenue

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 29, 2024

Jubitz issued fuel cards to qualified customers that allowed the customers to obtain fuel both at Jubitz stations and at other fueling stations in the Pacific Pride/CFN networks. … Jubitz Fuel Cards Jubitz issued fuel cards to certain qualified customers.

State v. Olivas

122 Wash. 2d 73 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 12, 1993

Under this analysis, such a testing program would clearly be unconstitutional. … It would, therefore, not support the testing of the blood samples obtained for purposes other than establishing the DNA databank.

Azorit-Wortham v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus.

Washington Supreme Court · Nov 6, 2025

The traveling employee doctrine, for example, if the individual fell while they were in the hotel room, sustained an injury, clearly applicable and would get them coverage. … However, Alaska Airlines argues that “[t]he Traveling Employee Doctrine changes the well-established definition of occupational disease and makes coverage automatic without requiring the worker to establish the elements

LaCoursiere v. CamWest Development, Inc.

172 Wash. App. 142 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 3, 2012

In Byrne, we held that an employee’s bonus, which was a single television set given to the employee one year, did not establish reliance or an implied contract to include televisions as wages. Id. at 690-91. … Powell , 172 Wash, at 156. ¶22 While the facts in this case are not as clear cut as those in Byrne, they are clearly distinguishable from those in Simon and Powell .

Ang v. Martin

76 P.3d 787 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 23, 2003

Clearly the purpose of Schroeder's testimony was to *792 prove that the jury did not say that they were going to acquit the Angs. Further, Schroeder's testimony does not directly contradict Almeda's credibility. … Rules of evidence are designed to aid in establishing the truth.

Starr v. Jim

52 Wash. 138 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1909

They are not qualified to cope with the white race, and the result of this decision, should it be sustained in the higher courts, will no doubt be prejudicial to their best interests. … It seems to us that there can be no question that the Moses agreement and these several acts of Congress clearly evince the long-established policy of the government to retain a guardianship over these Indians and to hold

Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc.

164 Wash. 2d 432 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 4, 2008

When Fluor waived its right to challenge the “jeopardy” element, the following was true: this court had established in Hubbard v. … It cannot now claim that a change in the law excuses its waiver. 3 We hold *444 that Fluor waived its right to contest the “jeopardy” element and that it does not qualify for an exception to that waiver.

Wegbreit v. Marley Orchards Corp.

793 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 11, 1992

Article III Section 27A incorporates the specific limitations periods which the various circuits had established prior to June 19,1991. … Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 316 , 65 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945), is clearly a matter of legitimate Congressional interest. See International Union of Elec. Wkrs. v.

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schafer

149 Wash. 2d 148 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 17, 2003

We conclude that Hamilton’s statements to Schafer qualify as a “confidence” or “secret” under RPC 1.6. … When Hamilton hired Schafer to represent him in that transaction, an attorney-client relationship was established between the two parties again.

Harris v. Drake

65 P.3d 350 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 18, 2003

Johnson would clearly have been in anticipation of litigation. But this litigation is between Ms. Johnson and Ms. McCay.... … 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

In re Pers. Restraint of Davis

Washington Supreme Court · May 18, 2017

None of these documents establish pharmacologists or toxicologists as the only qualified professionals to make such assessments. Davis has not shown that his counsel failed to meet the relevant standards. … Third, it's an exceptional case in which we, ourselves, are responsible for petitioner's counsel-we maintain the list of qualified counsel, and we appoint qualified counsel from that list.

In Re The Detention Of Brent Pettis

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2015

But evidence is inadmissible under Frye if there is a significant dispute among qualified scientists in the relevant scientific community. Anderson v. … Fisher' s testimony clearly shows that he was testifying to his understanding of the law, not to his understanding of Pettis' s factual plans.

State v. Blancaflor

183 Wash. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 25, 2014

We reject the State’s attempt for us to speculate on the basis of an unfounded presumption that is contrary to well-established law. ¶34 The State also contends that “it would not make any sense to presume that the jurors … We do so here. ¶61 RCW 51.16.060 states: Every employer not qualifying as a self-insurer, shall insure with the state and shall, on or before the last day of January, April, July and October of each year thereafter, furnish

Colbert v. Moomba Sports, Inc.

132 Wash. App. 916 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 16, 2006

SC counters that Colbert does not qualify as a “foreseeable” NIED plaintiff because (1) he did not witness his daughter suffer or drown; (2) he had been watching fruitless search efforts for two to three hours before he learned … We do not attempt to establish a required physical proximity between the injured victim and the witnessing family member for purposes of NIED.

Andrea Sehmel, V. Umair A. Shah

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 9, 2022

But, the statute clearly states that the secretary is authorized to act when “the local health officer fails or is unable to do so, or when in an emergency the safety of the public health demands it.” … Under the first Barry factor, this opinion resolves the same issue appellants keep arguing—that the delegation is overbroad—by citing to Barry, which clearly did not intend to require strict guidelines for

Li v. Northeastern University

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 30, 2023

(“[A]ny unplanned absence should be clearly communicated to 6 your manager with as much advanced notice as possible.”). … Jan. 7, 2019) (issue of fact whether administering immunizations is an essential job function 7 of a staff pharmacist); Kees v. Wallenstein, 973 F. Supp. 1191, 1194 (W.D.

Beaver

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 25, 2025

Legal Standard 12 A jurisdictional dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is warranted “where the alleged claim under 13 the constitution or federal statutes clearly appears … Beaver’s complaint “establishes 13 that the IRS issued an enforceable summons under procedures authorized by title 26”; therefore, 14 RFPA cannot provide a waiver of sovereign immunity here. Id. at 5–6.

State v. Barker

98 Wash. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 17, 1999

Commonwealth, 927 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Ky. 1996) (refusing to apply an exclusionary rule when the intent of the statute was to establish implied consent); People v. … This language clearly indicates the legislative intent to preclude the State from using the results of chemical tests of a person’s blood unless the person consents to the test.”). 39 E.g., Clark v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Medical Response Ambulance Service Inc

District Court, E.D. Washington · May 15, 2020

If only a portion or portions of the 7 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also must clearly 8 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9 … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 17 may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that provides for production

Taneja v. Freitas

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 24, 2023

The party seeking to compel discovery has the 15 burden of establishing that its requests are relevant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). … The work-product doctrine “is a ‘qualified immunity 8 from discovery’ that attempts to balance ‘the necessity of protecting an attorney’s preparation 9 under the adversary system, and the policy of full and open discovery