Case law

Laube

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 1, 2025

A statute of limitations “must be strictly construed” because 3 it “is a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity[.]” Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 4 467, 479 (1986). … “Equitable tolling is typically 7 denied in cases where a litigant’s own mistake clearly contributed to his predicament.” Harris v. 8 Carter, 515 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

In Re the Estate of Bergau

103 Wash. 2d 431 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1985

To implement this goal, RCW 84.34.060 provides that the assessor shall consider only current use of qualified property in determining true and fair value. … It was clearly and expressly stated in the will: assessed fair market value. As the majority concedes, the term "assessed fair market value" has only one possible interpretation: fair market value.

Spice v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 9, 2020

Dkt. 28. 9 The claims asserted against the Trustee here are clearly barred by the Barton doctrine. … The Plaintiff 11 and his counsel have violated Rule 11 by bringing the claims for which this Court clearly does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider.

Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

240 F. Supp. 3d 1114 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 9, 2017

For example, the SAIs clearly show that the Enterprises instruct their servicers to comply with state law. … In other words, Congress’s intent to cloak the FHFA with the exclusive ability to operate the Enterprise does not immunize it (or the Enterprises) from compliance with state law.

Rho Co. v. Department of Revenue

52 Wash. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 15, 1988

Agency findings of fact will be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, Hitchcock v. Department of Retirement Sys., 39 Wn. … The court stated’ *203 that the contract language by itself was insufficient to establish the existence of an agency relationship.

PEDERSON'S FRYER FARMS v. Transamerica

83 Wash. App. 432 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 6, 1996

The amount Pederson's expended for cleanup was clearly established at trial through introduction of the bills it received and paid. The amount expended to clean up the contamination was a sum certain. … Clearly, International Ins. did not overrule Olympic S.S.

Volk v. DeMeerleer

Washington Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2016

In fact, we clearly stated that whether the patient is an inpatient or an outpatient is immaterial. I d. … Admission is proper provided the expert is qualified and his or her testimony is helpful. Id.

Budget Rent a Car Corp. v. STATE, DOL

31 P.3d 1174 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2001

For an agency policy to qualify as a "rule" under the APA, two elements are required by statute: "Rule" means any agency order, directive, or regulation of general applicability (a) the violation of which subjects a person … Clearly this is not the case. At most, the statutory phrase "total... fleet" is ambiguous in this context. An ambiguity arises when a term is fairly susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations. Schelinski v.

State v. Pang

940 P.2d 1293 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 31, 1997

Thus, rather than furthering the ends of justice, the majority rewards Pang's calculated flight and ensures that neither nation's will is done by immunizing Pang from any liability for the deaths he may have caused. … (Criminal Law Code, Article 250 with qualifying clauses from Article 258—Arson followed by death).

BROWN EX REL. RICHARDS v. Brown

239 P.3d 602 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 10, 2010

testified that sometime in 2003 or 2004, Dottie arranged for them to meet with a "representative *605 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. Minor

174 P.3d 1162 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 17, 2008

Former RCW 9.41.040(1)(a) (2003). [4] Residential burglary qualifies as a "[c]rime of violence," which is included within the definition of a "[s]erious offense" for purposes of first degree unlawful possession of a firearm … without prejudice and is not an issue on appeal. [6] In his petition for review, Minor challenged the manifest injustice disposition, arguing it was not supported by the record and that the length of the disposition was clearly

Seattle Times Co. v. Serko

243 P.3d 919 · 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

State v. Duncalf

Washington Supreme Court · May 2, 2013

We reasoned, as to the degree of harm element, that in order to convict, the State had to prove the defendant inflicted great bodily harm and the statute did not establish a range of great bodily harm. … As to the harm element, the State advances the argument, similar to that advanced in Stubbs, that for second degree assault a range of potential injury that could qualify as substantial bodily harm exists.

State v. Boehning

111 P.3d 899 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 17, 2005

Boehning objected to Detective Holladay's testimony on the grounds that Detective Holladay was not qualified to proffer expert testimony about delayed disclosure; the court overruled the objection. ¶ 14 Boehning testified … Here, the prosecutor went beyond clarifying whether H.R. had a motive to lie about the abuse, he also clearly asked Boehning whether H.R. "made [it all] up." 3B RP at 219.

State v. Riofta

134 Wash. App. 669 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 22, 2006

RCW 10.73.170(2)(a)(i), (ii), and the first half of (iii) clearly indicate that the information to allegedly be gathered through postconviction DNA testing was unavailable at trial. … A failure to establish either element of the test defeats an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

Scott Woodward v. Emeritus Corporation

192 Wash. App. 584 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 9, 2016

Compare R-S(a) at 14 ("[a]rbitrators serving under these Rules shall be compensated at a rate established by the AAA") and Rules at 34 (Costs of Arbitration, establishing $1,SOO per day as the rate) with the AAA's Commercial … While we lack the particular criteria applied by the AAA in conducting its due I process review, the procedure that it follows is clearly set forth in the Rules.

Thomas v. French

99 Wash. 2d 95 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1983

The contract itself required the school to qualify students for the state cosmetology examination. … The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's eviden-tiary ruling and found the letter admissible on two alternative grounds: At the time it was admitted, the letter was clearly relevant to defendant's cross claim (later

In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Deming

108 Wash. 2d 82 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1987

We would reverse these cases out of hand if they were suits of a civil nature to establish a claim against petitioners. … The commission shall establish rules of procedure for commission proceedings including due process and confidentiality of proceedings.

Everest Indemnity Insurance v. QBE Insurance

980 F. Supp. 2d 1273 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 31, 2013

It requested that QBE/CAU agree to defend and indemnify Derus as a qualified insured under QBE/CAU’s insurance policies. Id. at ¶ 15. QBE/CAU denied Derus’ tender for defense by letter on August 14, 2009. Id. at ¶ 16. … Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Summary judgment is proper if the moving party establishes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Goehle v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research

1 P.3d 579 · 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 *586 basis of the misconduct alone if the employer had known of it.