Case law

State v. Sims

256 P.3d 285 · Washington Supreme Court · May 5, 2011

While RAP 2.4(a) does not limit the scope of argument a respondent may make, it qualifies any relief sought by the respondent beyond affirmation of the lower court. … The trial court in Sims's case clearly knew it had the option to grant or not grant a SSOSA and even that it could apply a geographical restriction.

David N. v. Holly Marie C.

137 Wash. App. 245 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 13, 2007

statement offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is not admissible at trial unless it qualifies as an exception. … Despite this language, which is apparently contained in the standard custody form used by the court to draft its findings and conclusions, the trial court’s findings and its oral ruling clearly establish that it applied the

State v. Darden

41 P.3d 1189 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 7, 2002

Although it may be that some communications between civilians and law enforcement surrounding a surveillance operation might qualify as privileged, it is absurd to claim a location per se is communication. … Here, as in Reed, the evidence the Defendant sought to introduce was relevant to the issue of how clearly the officer could view the drug transaction.

State Ex Rel. MacRi v. City of Bremerton

8 Wash. 2d 93 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1941

Bank, supra, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In Houston Oil Terminal Co. v. … The court said: “The burdens which the Magna Carta provision was designed to lift and secure immunity from, bear no resemblance whatever to those legitimate expenses of litigation which we call costs, or security for the

Saucedo v. NW Management & Realty Services, Inc.

290 F.R.D. 671 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 27, 2013

Thus, the only disputed issues for purposes of establishing liability are (1) whether NW Management qualifies as a “farm labor contractor” within the meaning of RCW 19.30.010(2) such that it was required to obtain a farm … Notably, it is not sufficient for Plaintiffs to establish that Mr. Morfin merely carried or fired a gun in the presence of putative class members. Rather, Plaintiffs must establish that Mr.

State Of Washington, V Gabriel Indelicio Nevarez

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 25, 2022

Houston-Sconiers established that a trial court must consider mitigating qualities of youth, even when imposing a standard range sentence. See In re Pers. … Thus, we hold that these 19- and 20-year-old petitioners must qualify for some of the same constitutional protections as well.” Id. at 313 (emphasis added).

Galvez v. Cuccinelli

387 F. Supp. 3d 1208 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 17, 2019

Federal Law Congress created the SIJ status in 1990 as a means of alleviating "hardships experienced by some dependents of United States juvenile courts by providing qualified aliens with the opportunity to apply for special … Instead, it ignored state law - which clearly granted to the state courts jurisdiction to make custody and care determinations for named plaintiffs - and the state courts' factual determinations, declaring those courts incompetent

McGugart v. Brumback

77 Wash. 2d 441 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1969

, and then claim the benefit of the statute when the adverse party sought to qualify or explain his testimony. … The record discloses that defendant administratrix clearly and timely objected to the testimony of Mr. and Mrs.

GROUP HEALTH ETC. v. King Co. Med. Soc.

39 Wash. 2d 586 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1951

The importance of access to Renton Hospital, on the part of appellants and others under contract with the Cooperative, is clearly established in the record. … In our opinion, the Society may not, through the mere use of the term "unethical," clothe with immunity acts which would otherwise fall under the ban of the antimonopoly provision of our constitution. [20] It is our conclusion

Ellis v. Egghead Software Short-Term & Long-Term Disability Plans

64 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jul 16, 1999

The court held that this language clearly satisfied the Firestone standard for conferring discretion. … In Friedrich , it was a failure to follow established policies and procedures. Here, there is evidence of both varieties.

Path America KingCo LLC v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 12, 2019

If USCIS determines that a 13 foreign national’s investment qualifies under the employment creation program, the agency may 14 then grant permanent resident status to the qualifying foreign national for a conditional … Whether Plaintiffs Continued to have an Investment Risk 16 To qualify for an EB-5 visa, a foreign investor must establish that

State v. Ivie

961 P.2d 941 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1998

The first inquiry is whether Congress, in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for the civil or criminal label. … I do not read that statute to immunize a military person from civilian criminal prosecution because of the imposition of Article 15 nonjudicial punishment by his or her commanding officer.

State of Washington v. Tishawn Marqueis Winborne

420 P.3d 707 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 26, 2018

If confronted with a challenge for cause in which the facts do not clearly establish whether a prospective juror should be removed, the better practice will be to resolve doubt in favor of disqualification … However, this error is not so fundamental that it qualifies as structural.

State v. Louie

68 Wash. 2d 304 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1966

It is defendant’s contention that instruction No. 13 is erroneous because it omits an essential ingredient of the statutory offense of burglary in the second degree when it fails to qualify the allegation “a building known … to instruction No. 13 into the constitutional realm and thereby relieve him of the obligation of excepting to the instruction in the trial court, as required by Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 51.16W, supra, are clearly

LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA v. State

254 P.3d 919 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 27, 2011

As part of this program, DSHS compensates nursing facilities in this state for care they provide to residents who qualify for Medicaid. … Rather, we must determine the Legislature's intent, as expressed by the statutes before us. ¶ 34 Second, as we explained earlier in this opinion, the statutes clearly state that the MACMI and FACMI shall be determined from

State v. Bao Dinh Dang

178 Wash. 2d 868 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 31, 2013

He didn’t describe what that was, but he said very clearly he was going to *886 do something big. He said he needed to go back to Western State Hospital. … And at that point I felt clearly like I needed to take some action at this point.

Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County

124 Wash. 2d 26 · Washington Supreme Court · May 26, 1994

Merely because the information which was provided is written does not immunize the authors from being "witnesses” subject to cross examination under PCC 2.36.090. … The findings and conclusions are clearly inadequate to determine the basis for the hearing examiner’s decision upholding the adequacy of the EIS.

Suzette Gould, Et Ux. v. North Kitsap Business Park

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 19, 2016

This argument fails because Mitchell’s experience rendered him qualified to testify as an expert. … A party may introduce expert testimony if the expert is qualified, relies on generally- accepted theories, and assists the trier of fact. ER 702.

Kastanis v. Educational Employees Credit Union

122 Wash. 2d 483 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1994

a plaintiff must first make out a prima facie discrimination case by showing that he or she: (1) was within the protected group; (2) was discharged; (3) was replaced by a person outside the protected group; and (4) was qualified … While a decision to order reinstatement as a remedy is clearly within the equitable jurisdiction of a court, scrutiny of a refusal of reinstatement falls to the trier of fact. See Duke v.

Nat'l Prods., Inc. v. Arkon Res., Inc.

294 F. Supp. 3d 1042 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 14, 2018

NPI asserts that there was no evidence of "unforeseen or unusual circumstances" presented at trial, and the jury's finding that Arkon's infringement was willful establishes that it was of the kind that necessarily establishes … As a result, the Supreme Court held that " inadvertent infringement of a weak mark is not sufficient to qualify as a public interest for the purpose of awarding attorney fees under the Consumer Protection Act." Id.