Case law

State v. Levy

8 Wash. 2d 630 · Washington Supreme Court · May 16, 1941

Several of them clearly hold that it must appear affirmatively that prejudice resulted before reversal will follow. State v. … The material portion of each of those counts reads as follows: “That the said Arnold Levy . . . being at that time a duly elected, qualified and acting County Commissioner of the County of Clallam, . . . and being during

Hendryx v. People's United Church

42 Wash. 336 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1906

intent, made, executed and delivered to said defendant Thomas Hye a deed to all of said church’s real estate, and a bill of sale of all of said church’s personal property in the state of Idaho, for the purpose of there establishing … While there are many things said in this case which tend to support the doctrine claimed by the respondents, the announcement just made, it seems to us, clearly supports the appellants’ contention in this case.

Hipple v. McFadden

161 Wash. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 28, 2011

The complaint alleges that in 2005, DAC determined that Hippie qualified for appointed counsel, supporting the inference that he was unable to pay the terms of the initial contempt order. … Under CR 12(b)(6), Elsey and McFadden had to prove beyond doubt that that Hippie could not prove any set of facts establishing causation. Burton, 153 Wn.2d at 422 .

Parker v. Hardy

200 Wash. 318 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 25, 1939

On June 13th, the Yakima First National Bank qualified as executor and the will was admitted to probate. … There is a complete failure of proof of an essential element to establish the charge of fraud; that is, that the facts were concealed from Mrs. Larson.

State Of Washington, V. Darion A Lipsey

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 8, 2022

Clearly inadmissible evidence—clearly these rumors would be inadmissible evidence unless they meet the definition of some exception like other suspect or some other specific exception. … Lipsey has not clearly identified for this court what specific evidence was sought, much less that it met the applicable legal standards such that it was relevant.

American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards

115 Wash. 2d 217 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 20, 1990

RCW 62A.2-719(3) provides: Limitation of . . . consequential damages is valid unless it is established that the limitation is unconscionable. … However, because both parties have prevailed on *235 major issues, neither qualifies as the prevailing party under the contract. See Sardam v. Morford, 51 Wn. App. 908 , 756 P.2d 174 (1988).

Lorrie Wittig, V. Washington State Attorney General

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 18, 2025

This is connected to [Wittig’s] belief that God made her body a temple of the Holy Spirit and provided her with an immune system to protect and heal her body. … In fact, Wittig clearly alleges that her belief that taking a vaccine would be contrary to her religious beliefs is a conviction she had exercised throughout her life.

State v. King

113 Wash. App. 243 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 9, 2002

Further, clothing destroyed during the commission of the crime is clearly within the scope of the restitution statute. … Israel argues that Dorman’s testimony was insufficient to establish Israel’s knowledge of robberies. Dorman did not clearly articulate how much he told Israel about the robberies.

Stephen Kerr Eugster, App/cross-res v. Washington State Bar Association, Res/cross-app

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2020

The WSBA argued that the decisions in Eugster’s prior cases were persuasive precedent and established numerous grounds for disposing of the claims asserted in Caruso. … A superior court abuses its discretion in denying fees when governing law clearly demonstrates the plaintiff’s claims were invalid. Kearney, 95 Wn. App. at 416.

City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of City of Tacoma

108 Wash. 2d 679 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 27, 1987

A significant purpose of RCW 35.92.360 is to insure that municipal utilities will establish well conceived and cost-effective conservation programs. … We held that an agreement to purchase project capability did not qualify as the purchase of electricity. Chemical Bank , at 784.

Impero v. Whatcom County

71 Wash. 2d 438 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1967

This case is clearly distinguishable from those cited by appellant in support of its argument, such as Caron v. … In his opening statement, respondent’s counsel stated that: One of these drainage holes thus established by the County on what was largely County right of way, one of them was quite near the office.

Samuel & Jessie Kenney Presbyterian Home v. State

174 Wash. 19 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1933

Ballard) as trustees to effectuate the Kenneys ’ charitable plan of establishing a home for aged people. The first three above-named qualified, and are still acting as trustees. Mr. … It was found advisable to establish a uniform rule as to these requirements.

Regan v. State Dept. of Licensing

121 P.3d 731 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 25, 2005

bail bond profession clearly encompasses Patterson's actions here. … Former RCW 18.185.170(5) provided: [T]he owner or qualified agent of a bail bond agency is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if he or she employs any person to perform the duties of a bail bond agent without the employee having

In re the Welfare of: B.P.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2015

The Department has established RCW 13.34.180( 1)(f) by clear cogent and convincing evidence. 39. [H.O.] clearly loves [B.P.] and wants to parent her. … If anything, DSHS established less cause to terminate H.O.'s parental rights than it established with regard to the mother in SJ. SJ.'

City of Seattle v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

21 Wash. 2d 838 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1944

Clearly, the authorities uphold respondent’s position. … The court held the ordinance was clearly a revenue measure.

Ulve v. City of Raymond

51 Wash. 2d 241 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1957

R. (2d) 800 (1953), this court said: “The rule is well established that a municipality is not negligent in failing to erect and maintain warning signs or barriers unless (a) the situation is inherently dangerous, Neel v. … While this exception allows a witness to testify as to his impression, it does not qualify nor permit him to testify as to the impression identical facts would have upon a person other than himself. Fort Worth v.

Hinton v. Carmody

186 Wash. 242 · Washington Supreme Court · May 19, 1936

Under a liability policy, the obligation to pay *248 arises as soon as liability against tbe insured is established, and any obligation within the coverage of the policy may be reached by a writ of garnishment. … We have carefully read the evidence in this connection, and are clearly of the opinion that appellant’s contention is not supported by the record.

State v. Saunders

86 P.3d 232 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 24, 2004

In Green , the State had to prove kidnapping, an uncharged offense, to establish an element of the charged crime of aggravated first degree murder. … And even if the form of the oath were defective, the trial judge would qualify as a de facto officer. See State v.

State Of Washington, V. Alejandro Pena Salvador

17 Wash. App. 2d 769 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 1, 2021

Establishing a manifest abuse of discretion requires more than “a mere possibility of prejudice.” Id. at 840. … Although the condition does not specify how often an activity must occur to qualify as a “regular” occurrence, a commonsense reading makes clear that, in Peña Salvador’s example, the youth activities would be too remote

In Re Parentage of LB

122 P.3d 161 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 3, 2005

RCW 26.26.101. [5] ¶ 64 Britain qualifies under RCW 26.26.101(1)(a) — incorporating the preexisting definition of parent — as she is the birth mother of L.B. [6] Carvin does not qualify under any section. [7] This should … Applying Luby's facts to the majority's new test for " de facto " parent, Luby would qualify. From the facts of that case it appears that (1) S.H.B.'