Case law

Susan Chen And Naixiang Lian v. Kate Halamay, Md.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 10, 2020

Because Chen fails to establish error, we affirm. 1 We grant Chen’s motion to use initials to refer to their minor children. … clearly. the referral was made in good faith and that mandatory . . reporting is encouraged to protect children.

State v. Manussier

921 P.2d 473 · Washington Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1996

The initiative's goal of improved public safety, stated clearly in RCW 9.94A.392, is a legitimate state objective. [85] And while the offenses included in the enumerated list of crimes in RCW 9.94A.030(21) may be at least … Just as in the case before us today, the trial court, sitting without a jury, determined whether the defendant qualified to be sentenced as a habitual offender.

Hollywood Hill Neighbors, V. King County

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 8, 2023

These code provisions, taken together, establish that, in the RA 2.5 zone, the BLA procedure is explicitly unavailable where a “resulting” lot—a lot established as a “consequence” of the BLA—would be smaller than 1.875 … One is 172 feet from the but can clearly see the lots.

In re the Recall Charges Against City of Pacific Mayor Cy Sun

177 Wash. 2d 251 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2013

Legal sufficiency requires that the petition state, with specificity, substantial conduct clearly amounting to misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of the oath of office. … In West, we expressed concern that the recall petitioner had simply read in the newspaper about the mayor’s alleged quid pro quo offer to a young person and we refrained from “establish [ing] that media articles, categorically

Piel v. City of Federal Way

177 Wash. 2d 604 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2013

The city is correct. ¶59 The rule of law established in Korslund does not directly contradict that set forth in Smith. … This court has clearly acknowledged that some statutory schemes will adequately protect the public policy they embody and therefore will foreclose a plaintiff’s access to a claim of WTVP.

Satcher v. Stanislaus

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 24, 2020

Stanislaus clearly does not want to appear 19 before the Court to represent her own interest. … Nothing establishes that Stanislaus was not properly joined and 10 served at the time Defendant filed its notice of removal.

Pellino v. Brink's, Inc.

164 Wash. App. 668 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 7, 2011

The findings establish that Pellino could “establish liability by using representative evidence to prove a pattern or practice of violations by the defendant with respect to the class.” … The court interpreted the language used in WAC 296-126-092(4) to “ ‘clearly and unambiguously prohibit!

Cash v. Berryhill

356 F. Supp. 3d 1077 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 19, 2018

Denise Sterchi, LICSW "Only physicians and certain other qualified specialists are considered '[a]cceptable medical sources.' " Ghanim v. … Breen's statements do not establish limitations on plaintiff's long-term or permanent abilities.

State Of Washington v. William Carney

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 16, 2013

Cir. 1965), in concluding that "[i]t would clearly be unconstitutional to permit the conviction of a defendant who was legally insane at the time of the commission of the crime." Smith, 88 Wn.2d at 643. … Since Teague . . . , this court has consistently and repeatedly followed and applied the federal retroactivity analysis as established in Teague."

State v. McPhee

230 P.3d 284 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 11, 2010

The jury could have reasonably inferred that McPhee knew *295 the firearms were stolen when he possessed them on February 9. ¶ 40 The evidence clearly establishes the corpus delicti for the crime of possession of stolen firearms … It is longstanding and well-established that a property owner may testify as to the property's market value without being qualified as an expert in this regard. State v.

Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp.

430 P.3d 229 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 29, 2018

This undoubtedly qualifies as an adverse employment action. See Jin Zhu v. N. Cent. Educ. Serv. Dist. … Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 788 (7th Cir. 2009)("Clearly, a superior cannot retaliate against an employee for a protected activity about which he has no knowledge."); Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch.

Anthony v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2021

Arkin’s deposition that he was “not 4 qualified to opine on Army Regulations or the Washington State standard of care for mental health 5 (or any) practitioners.” Id.; Dkt. No. 88 at 3. For one, Dr. … No. 90 at 3-4. 25 Requiring Defendant to repeat this process, all while delaying the case yet again, would clearly amount to prejudice.

Roake v. Delman

Washington Supreme Court · Jan 11, 2018

The legislature thus clearly knows how to relieve a petitioner from the burden of showing future dangerousness by specific statements or acts. … See RCW 7.90.005 (SAPOs are intended to "be a remedy for victims who do not qualify for a domestic violence order of protection").

State Of Washington, V Leneyah N. Frost

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2025

excessive or clearly too lenient. … For robbery, the use of a weapon results in the offense qualifying as robbery in the first degree, not second degree; clearly, the legislature’s standard range sentence for robbery in the second degree contemplates the

Freedom Foundation v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 117

District Court, W.D. Washington · May 15, 2023

Here, Plaintiff has established neither. … This argument fails as the statute clearly does not 3 contemplate Plaintiff’s involvement in this process one way or the other.

Bruce M. Beatty v. Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 15, 2015

"The pamphlet shall be written to clearly indicate the prospecting methods that require a permit under this chapter and prospecting methods that require compliance with the pamphlet." RCW 77.55.091(3). … Beatty neglected to address which of the qualifiers in RCW 34.05.010(16) apply to the WDFW's action in order to classify the internal mitigation policy as a rule.

Faustino-Anaya v. Andrewjeski

District Court, E.D. Washington · Mar 1, 2024

Habeas relief 7 is only available if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an 8 unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the 9 Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C … 13 established’ at the time of the adjudication.”); see Williams v.

State v. McFarland

Washington Supreme Court · Aug 3, 2017

I cannot come up with any legitimate reason to hold that the circumstances of this case qualify for such special treatment. … The record in Mulholland thus clearly showed that the trial court had an erroneous view of the law. Cf McGill, 112 Wn.

Gunnier v. Yakima Heart Center, Inc.

953 P.2d 1162 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1998

Nicholas Jerns Co., 86 Wash.2d 215, 219 , 543 P.2d 338 (1975) the court said that "[u]ntil a plaintiff suffers appreciable harm as a consequence of negligence, he cannot establish a cause of action." ( Gazija is not a medical … This language clearly does not provide that the limitations period commences with accrual of a cause of action.

Cunningham v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle

751 F. Supp. 885 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 6, 1990

It has established programs to combat drug-abuse problems related to its transit operations. … The powers actually exercised by Metro are enough to place it clearly within the scope of the one person, one vote principle if its governing body is elected.