Case law

ESTATE OF BUNCH v. McGRAW RESIDENTIAL CTR.

174 Wash. 2d 425 · Washington Supreme Court · May 3, 2012

Kozel was clearly subject to service of process, and her joinder would not deprive the court of jurisdiction. … establishes that Kozel met this standard.

Tennant v. F. C. Whitney & Sons

133 Wash. 581 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1925

Recurring to the language of the article, particularly to the words italicized by us in the above quotation thereof, it seems to us that its *588 language would be readily understood by anyone reading it as clearly imputing … The theory upon which appellant requested this instruction was that, inasmuch as the court told the jury that the burden was upon appellants to establish their plea of justification that respondent had possession of the intoxicating

Beal v. City of Seattle

150 Wash. App. 865 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 22, 2009

And the City argues that Citizens did not communicate their request clearly enough to put the City on notice that they were requesting public records, meaning that the trial court properly decided as a matter of law that … Nothing in the evidence before the trial court establishes that Citizens put FFD on notice that they were requesting identifiable public records under the provisions of the PRA.

McCarty v. King County Medical Service Corp.

26 Wash. 2d 660 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1946

If special privileges or immunities are to be reserved to it which would exempt it from the plain obligations of its contract, the legislature should be importuned, not the courts. *686 This brings us to the appeal of Seattle … Clearly, the issues presented in that case did not bring the court to the point where it was faced with the duty of construing the two contracts which are before us in the present case.

In re the Marriage of Ayyad

110 Wash. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 28, 2002

Here, the record reflects that the options at issue are “non-qualified” (incentive) options, which are treated as wages for federal income tax purposes when exercised and cashed in. … A party challenging the award has the burden to prove that the trial court abused its discretion by making a decision that is clearly untenable or manifestly unreasonable. In re Marriage of Mattson, 95 Wn.

Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Company

102 Wash. 2d 219 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1984

While an employer need not establish personnel policies or practices, where an employer chooses to establish such policies and practices and makes them known to its employees, the employment relationship is presumably enhanced … Prior judicial decisions may also establish the relevant public policy.

Davis v. Harrison

25 Wash. 2d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1946

Two hundred eighty-five thousand shares, less a qualifying share to each of the others, and one hundred fifty shares to Neva Appleton, were issued to C. L. Harrison. … M. was not qualified to do business in Alaska. The following year, the directors agreed with J. M.

Michael Konicke, Et Ano. v. Evergreen Emergency Services, Et Ano.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 8, 2021

Had the legislature intended that the protection of public safety be accomplished by the creation of civil liability for detention decisions, it likely would not have immunized such decisions in the absence of bad faith … But the provision clearly does not create a criminal offense. No degree of crime—class A felony, class B felony, class C felony, gross misdemeanor, misdemeanor—is set forth. No elements of a crime are set forth.

Ali v. Ashcroft

213 F.R.D. 390 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 17, 2003

Nothing has made this point more clearly than the Government’s own submissions to this Court. … Nowhere is it envisioned that Congress established a system that eliminated the need for acceptance from the receiving country.

State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn

43 P.3d 4 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2002

This limitation, C & G reasons, is of general applicability and clearly establishes or alters qualifications for the enjoyment of benefits or privileges conferred by law, and thus is a rule subject to the Administrative Procedure … RCW 90.44.050 clearly creates an exemption from the permit requirement for the taking of groundwater for domestic use and the exemption is clearly limited to 5,000 gpd.

Beal v. City of Seattle

209 P.3d 872 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 22, 2009

And the City argues that Citizens did not communicate their request clearly enough to put the City on notice that they were requesting public records, meaning that the trial court properly decided as a matter of law that … Nothing in the evidence before the trial court establishes that Citizens put FFD on notice that they were requesting identifiable public records under the provisions of the PRA.

State v. Jones

922 P.2d 806 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1996

At no time was Hill able to see the man clearly in the light. … The expert witness must qualify as an expert, and the testimony must be helpful to the trier of fact. Cauthron, 120 Wash.2d at 889-90 , 846 P.2d 502 .

State v. Carlson

61 Wash. App. 865 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 15, 1991

Although the trial judge's rulings on the State's motion were clearly tentative, Carlson never sought a final decision. … The material at issue is a report from Childhaven which established that as late as July 7, 1989, Z complained *879 of burning during urination.

Mark v. Seattle Times

96 Wash. 2d 473 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1981

At trial, the State established invalid claims totaling only about $2,500. … Under the common law, a qualified privilege could be defeated only by proving the publisher either published maliciously or abused the privilege. See generally Taskett v.

Hughes v. Kramer

82 Wash. 2d 537 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1973

Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 (1964), the court indicated that the term "revolution", appearing in a loyalty oath, was suspect and would not pass constitutional muster unless clearly it related to … Similarly, the challenged term "revolution", when read in the context of the qualifying terms in the oath which accompany it, necessarily relates to and involves force or violence and the destruction or overthrow of government

State v. Larson

249 P.3d 669 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 15, 2011

The court in Kelley concluded cumulative punishment is clearly intended. Id. at 80, 226 P.3d 773 . … Significantly, Grier also recognizes that "[n]ot all strategies or tactics on the part of defense counsel are immune from attack." Id.

State v. Ellis

963 P.2d 843 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1998

In my view, the State did not establish that the evidence proffered by the defendant on the issue of diminished capacity was clearly inadmissible when it is considered in light of ER 401, 402, and 403. … Clearly, therefore, premeditation constitutes an essential element of the crime of aggravated first degree murder. (Footnotes omitted.)

Alexandria Real Equities Inc. John J. Cox, Dean A. Takko, V. University Of Wa

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 5, 2023

The superior court’s findings of fact clearly found no relevance to the differences in the corporate forms of Wexford and LS W27. … The court held the disappointed bidder was too late to qualify for disappointed bidder standing. Id. at 572.

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.

15 P.3d 115 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 16, 2001

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.

In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Day

162 Wash. 2d 527 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 20, 2007

J. in his capacity as an attorney, and Day had access to D.J. only because D.J.’s mother knew he was an attorney. ¶34 This court has clearly established that an attorney may be sanctioned for misconduct that occurs outside … Even under Justice Williams’ analysis, a lawyer molesting a former client who is a minor qualifies as an act of moral turpitude warranting disbarment.