Case law

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.

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

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.

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

Washington State Housing Finance Commission v. O'Brien

100 Wash. 2d 491 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1983

The second resolution authorized revenue bonds to aid mortgagors of qualified multifamily residential *494 housing. … The constitutional question in Johnson could have been clearly obviated by the language of the statute itself which provides for the imposition of a fee to compensate the Department for services rendered in establishment

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.

Sumas Mountain Comm For Landslide Awareness v. Wa State Forest Practices Brd

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 29, 2018

The court issued a memorandum decision in which it stated that the State Supreme Court's opinion in WEA established a narrow definition of "agency action," and the Board Manual did not qualify because it was an "advisory … A de facto rule is thus not immune from judicial review.

State v. Rafay

168 Wash. App. 734 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 18, 2012

Miyoshi entered into an immunity agreement and in August 2003 participated in a videotaped preservation deposition that was played at trial. ¶32 After a series of delays caused in part by the need to appoint new attorneys … Burns clearly attempted to leverage the incident to a more lucrative relationship with the organization.

Goehle v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

100 Wash. App. 609 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 20, 2000

The appellate court will only review a claimed error which is included in an assignment of error or clearly disclosed in the associated issue pertaining thereto. … To limit the damage award, the employer must first establish that the misconduct was of such severity that the employee would have been terminated on the basis of the misconduct alone if the employer had known of it.

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.

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.

State v. Shawn P.

122 Wash. 2d 553 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1993

Const. amend. 14, § 1 and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Const. *560 art. 1, § 12 are substantially identical. 18 Both, require that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose … offender. 53 Juveniles aged 12 and under are grouped together under this system. 54 Juveniles older than 12 are allocated offender points based on their age, year by year. 55 Further, the purposes of the legislation would not clearly

Albice v. Premier Mortgage Services of Washington, Inc.

157 Wash. App. 912 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 28, 2010

Albice/ Teccas also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the foreclosure sale should be set aside as void because (1) Premier was not a qualified trustee with authority to conduct the sale and (2) the sale occurred after … Where, as here, the deed contains legal conclusions but not factual recitals that establish compliance with RCW 61.24.040(7), we decline to extend protection to a purchaser beyond what the legislature clearly intended.

Kim v. Board of Trustees of Whitman College

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 28, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the 17 material on a page qualifies for protection, the producing party also 18 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 19 … This provision is not intended to modify 15 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 16 provides for production without prior privilege review.

Nelson v. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc.

121 P.3d 95 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 13, 2005

In Van Eck , the purchaser of petroleum products was not allowed to bring an action to challenge the assessment of a sales tax on the gross earnings of petroleum products because the purchaser did not qualify as a "taxpayer … Nelson's claim for monetary relief clearly predominates over his request for declaratory relief. ¶ 63 Does Mr. Nelson have standing to represent the class? The trial court concluded that Mr.

Ejonga v. Watanabe

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 18, 2023

Defendants 4 further contend discovery should be strictly limited in light of their assertion of qualified 5 immunity, and argue that the specific requests are overly broad or otherwise objectionable. … Court granted 18 Plaintiff’s request (Dkt. 120)—but Plaintiff has failed to comply with the new deadline. 19 The Court concludes Plaintiff has not been diligent in obtaining discovery within the 20 guidelines established

Noble v. SAFE HARBOR PRESERVATION TRUST

216 P.3d 1007 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 24, 2009

Tillicum argues that Safe Harbor's strategic decision not to join Tillicum after Safe Harbor raised the defense of a feasible alternative route "does not immunize it from responsibility for [its] attorney fees under RCW 8.24.030 … But where the court later determines the alternative route proposed by the condemnee was clearly unfeasible and implausible, the judge has discretion under the statute to award attorney fees.

Kitsap County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board

138 Wash. App. 863 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 30, 2007

Deference to county action under the GMA ends only if its actions are “clearly erroneous” applications of the GMA. … Only in 1997 did it establish specific deadlines for the first broader review and update of complete comprehensive plans, and then that deadline was September 1, 2002. Laws of 1997, ch. 429, § 10.

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.

In re Wenatchee Heights Orchard Co.

209 F. 84 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 3, 1913

Further provision was made for the transfer of all of the stock of the Summit Investment Company to a trustee, except sufficient shares to qualify the directors to hold office. … Though the court has not found such clearly established fraud in these notes, at the inception of the claim, in the evidence, as to void them, yet they were not free from question, and city property of the nature of that