Case law

Empire Health Found. v. Price

334 F. Supp. 3d 1134 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Aug 13, 2018

Two scenarios exist in which a person may qualify for Medicare Part A and yet not receive or be "covered" by his or her Medicare Part A benefits. … "A court lacks authority to undermine the regime established by the Secretary unless her regulation is 'arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.' " Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med.

Jones v. Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 11, 2023

Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). 21 In addition, it is well established that, under the Eleventh Amendment, a nonconsenting state is 22 immune from suits brought in federal courts by its own citizens … Thus, any amended complaint must clearly identify the Defendant(s), the 14 constitutional claim(s) asserted, the specific facts which Plaintiff believes support each claim, 15 and the specific relief requested.

North Central Washington Respiratory Care Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

165 Wash. App. 616 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 20, 2011

Dep’t of Revenue, 105 Wn.2d 912, 917-18 , 719 P.2d 541 (1986) (rejecting taxpayer’s argument that the Department could use a regulation “to expand the tax immunity of exporters beyond the exemptions provided by statute or … Sys., 94 Wn.2d 701, 711 , 620 P.2d 88 (1980)). 14 Excise Tax Bulletin 498.08.151, which the Department promulgated almost 28 years before the legislature adopted its own statutory definition of “prosthetic devices,” 15 clearly

Protect The Peninsula's Future v. Haaland

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 15, 2025

Jamestown filed 16 a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims 17 without waiving its sovereign immunity. Dkt. 29. … To qualify, the litigation must “transcend the private 6 interests” of the litigants and seek to vindicate a public right. Kescoli v. Babbitt, 101 F.3d 7 1304, 1311 (9th Cir. 1996).

Bottoms v. Block Inc

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 11, 2024

for protection under this agreement must be clearly so 8 designated before or when the material is disclosed or produced. 9 … This provision is not intended 6 to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order or agreement that 7 provides for production

Vrinceanu v. King County

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

Seq” are 22 clearly duplicative of the claims in Case No. 2:23-cv-00539-RAJ. … Dismissal of Individual Defendants based on Qualified Immunity The Court declines to address this issue at this time given that the case is being 4

Shaterian v. MAPFRE Insurance Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 5, 2025

The party seeking to compel discovery has the 3 burden of establishing that its requests are relevant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). … Apr. 26, 2013) (“Although Cedell focuses 21 primarily upon the attorney–client privilege, the case clearly states that the presumption applies equally to the work product doctrine.”).

McClarty v. Totem Elec.

137 P.3d 844 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 6, 2006

I say that because the record establishes that McClarty fails to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment and/or to show evidence of Totem Electric's discriminatory motive. … The legislature has clearly acquiesced in the Commission's definition. See, e.g., Wash. Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Wash. Utils. & Transp.

Davis v. Cox

183 Wash. 2d 269 · Washington Supreme Court · May 28, 2015

This initial statute grants speakers immunity from claims based on the speaker’s communication to a governmental entity regarding any matter reasonably of concern to the governmental entity. See RCW 4.24.510. … On this disputed material fact, when the superior court resolved the anti-SLAPP motion, it weighed the evidence and found the defendants’ “evidence clearly shows that the Israel boycott and divestment movement is a national

Pacific Commercial Co. v. Northwestern Fisheries Co.

115 Wash. 608 · Washington Supreme Court · May 16, 1921

“A waiver must be clearly proved, but this may be effected by various species of evidence. … That instrument provided that “the exact loss” should be “established by independent survey.”

Iceberg v. Brookstone Landscape & Design LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 8, 2024

Iceberg has been “diagnosed with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, complex 20 post-traumatic stress disorder, and ulcerative colitis” and is “immune compromised.” Id. ¶¶ 10– 21 11. Mr. … Nov. 4, 2022) (“[A] program [that] received a PPP loan [is] sufficient to establish receipt of federal financial assistance for the purpose of surviving a motion to 22

Story v. Anderson

91 Wash. 2d 667 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1979

Four residency districts of disparate sizes were established for county commission elections. However, again, elections were county wide. … Primary elections are clearly sufficiently fraught with state action to invoke constitutional guaranties, and "the same tests to determine the character of discrimination or abridgement should be applied to the primary as

Hoscheid v. Bartholet

78 Wash. 309 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1914

Matthias Bartholet was appointed executor and qualified as such. … Anything going to the validity of the will as of that date is clearly a proper subject to be raised by a contest of the probate.

T.B. & K.B. v. S.G. and Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 19, 2021

It is absurd that financial support a dependent child needs, and for which his adoptive parents are obliged, should be denied solely because the person who would qualify as a custodial parent entitled to apply for support … XIV, § 1, and by the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution, art. I, § 12, are substantially identical. State v. Shawn P., 122 Wn.2d 553, 559-60, 859 P.2d 1220 (1993).

Federal Home Loan Bank Of Seattle, App. v. Barclays Capital, Inc., Res.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 11, 2017

establish liability. 42 Gustafson v. … To the contrary, they clearly establish that reasonable reliance is an essential element of this claim.

White v. University of Washington

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 22, 2024

The remaining exhibits are neither clearly referenced in nor relevant to 3 Plaintiff’s briefing on the 12(c) motion or motion to amend. See Dkt. Nos. 73, 79, 80. 4 a. … Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2020) (“In a § 1983 22 9 The Court does not address whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as

State v. Radan

21 P.3d 255 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 22, 2001

State argues, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the statute is not ambiguous and that because Radan's automatic restoration of rights was not based on a "finding of rehabilitation" or a "finding of innocence" it cannot qualify … Pagan, 721 F.2d 24, 30 (2d Cir.1983) ("certificate setting aside a youthful offender's conviction and unconditionally discharging him from further probation prior to expiration of the maximum term of probation clearly implies

State Ex Rel. Mason v. Board of County Commissioners

146 Wash. 449 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1928

And further, that: “No person shall be eligible to hold the office of port commissioner unless he is a qualified voter, and freeholder within such port district, and is and has been a resident for a period of three (3) years … The basis of those decisions is that, where it clearly appears that the county commissioners refuse to perform an official duty and that, by such refusal, the purpose of the law will be defeated, mandamus may be resorted

Magee v. Rite Aid

167 Wash. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 17, 2012

And what we’re trying to establish in our record is that there was a repeated physical abuse of this woman from October up until June, and then she filed a claim. … It clearly is not. When the Board exceeds its scope of review, it has committed an error of law. In re Orena Houle, BIIA Dec., 00 11628 (2001).

Reeder v. Crewes

199 Wash. 40 · Washington Supreme Court · May 5, 1939

This amendment, however, did not re-establish in favor of the injured workman any common law right, but simply enlarged his existing statutory right.” In a second case on appeal of Denning v. … This court held that, despite general compliance with the act by the company, it still was not entitled to immunity from liability for negligently injuring the employe of another employer because, at the time of the accident