Case law

Paulson v. McMillan

8 Wash. 2d 295 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1941

It is, of course, unnecessary that every member of a partnership must be able and qualified to do every act required to further its general purpose. … The instruction complained of is clearly erroneous. The respondents, however, contend that, even if the instruction was erroneous, it was harmless error.

United States v. Washington

19 F. Supp. 3d 1126 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 31, 1994

At the time of submission of a matter to dispute resolution, the state and. the tribes shall each identify a qualified member. … Upon agreement of the state and the tribes, either may appoint additional qualified members of the Committee to serve in a particular case.

Austin K. Fite, V. City Of Puyallup

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2021

principles The business records exception to the hearsay prohibition states, A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified … Indeed, one witness clearly stated that “I did not see [Fite] stop before crossing the road.” 11 RP at 1874.

Greene v. Young

54 P.3d 734 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 30, 2002

McMahon that clearly answers the question of whether one seeking damages for emotional distress need witness the accident: A bright-line rule that limits recovery for emotional distress to those who witnessed the accident … favorable to the insured applies. [12] An ambiguity exists only "`if the language on its face is fairly susceptible to two different but reasonable interpretations.'" [13] The policy states that in order for Mitchell to qualify

Tofsrud v. City of Spokane

District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 2, 2021

Other courts have found that prosecutors are entitled to 17 absolute prosecutorial immunity for such decisions. See Harris v. … June 17, 3 2020) (“Defendants Driscoll and Haskell are entitled to absolute prosecutorial 4 immunity for the decision to place Deputy Pendell on the [Potential Impeachment 5 Disclosure List].”).

City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 26, 2023

(See e.g., id. at 59-61 (cancer), 273-74 (immune system), 301-02, 1 304-07 (neurodevelopment), 329 (reproduction).) Dr. … Hiltner clearly criticizes Dr. Boehm’s cleanup 19 benchmarks employed as part of his risk assessment methodology. (See DeBord Hiltner Decl., 20 Ex. B at 3.) Though Ms.

In Re the Detention of Danforth

173 Wash. 2d 59 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 10, 2011

Danforth moved for summary judgment, arguing that his actions did not constitute a “recent overt act” to qualify him for commitment proceedings under former RCW 71.09-.020(10) (2006), recodified as RCW 71.09.020(12). … Ed. 2d 664 (1969) (holding that statutes that criminalize pure speech “must he interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind”).

Austin K. Fite, V. City Of Puyallup

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 12, 2022

The business records exception to the hearsay prohibition states, A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified … Indeed, one witness clearly stated that “I did not see [Fite] stop before crossing the road.” 11 RP at 1874.

State v. Magers

189 P.3d 126 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2008

Clearly, evidence that Magers was arrested in December 2003 for shoving Ray and that a no-contact order was entered following that arrest is admissible. … A statement qualifies as an excited utterance if (1) a startling event occurred, (2) the declarant made the statement while under the stress or excitement of the event, and (3) the statement relates to the event.

Langadinos v. Washington State Bar Association

District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 15, 2024

No. 11 at 17, and thus that its shares in the State Supreme Court’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. But the 21 WSBA does not discuss the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinions in Crowe v. … When conduct offered to establish outrage is not extreme, “a 6 court must withhold the case from a jury notwithstanding proof of intense 7 emotional suffering.” Brower v.

Olson v. First National Insurance Company of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2020

Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). 23 Applicable here, the work product doctrine is a procedural immunity governed by the Federal Rules … First, Defendant does not clearly establish the 2 date upon which it reasonably anticipated litigation.

State ex rel. T.B. v. CPC Fairfax Hospital

129 Wash. 2d 439 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1996

to establish guidelines beneficial to and protective of their children. … The legislature further finds that *462 it is the right and responsibility of adults to establish laws for the benefit and protection of the society; and that, in the same manner, the right and responsibility for establishing

Knight v. Pang

32 Wash. 2d 217 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1948

This principle is so well established in this jurisdiction as to scarcely require citation of supporting authority. [Citing cases.]” … The instruction, as requested, was clearly improper, and the trial court correctly refused to give it.

Tom Latta v. Chelan County

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 31, 2023

A use must be clearly established prior to the relevant change in zoning law. See Anderson v. … Wilkinson has no application here, where Ordinance 852 used specific language, clearly and plainly prohibiting STRs in low-density residential zones.

State v. Mason

160 Wash. 2d 910 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 19, 2007

However, we are not convinced a trial court’s ruling that a statement is offered for a purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted immunizes the statement from confrontation clause analysis. … His analysis established two strands of DNA; one was identified as the victim’s.

Donaldson v. Microsoft Corp.

205 F.R.D. 558 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 16, 2001

First, the Court examines whether the class representatives are “able to prosecute the action vigorously through qualified counsel.” Smith v. … In Paige , the plaintiff clearly described a disparate impact claim, although he did not use the words “disparate impact.” In the case at hand, Ms.

Anthony v. United States

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 26, 2022

The USMEPCOM Chief Medical Officer and the USAREC Command Surgeon 17 subsequently determined Suhanec was medically qualified for enlistment. … Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to establish negligent hiring, Defendant 8 retains sovereign immunity and Plaintiff’s suit fails. 9 III.

In re the Personal Restraint of Marler

108 Wash. App. 799 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 22, 2001

We remand to the Board with instructions to fix a new minimum term and to delineate clearly the effect of a MAP upon accrual of statutory good time. *804 FACTS In 1980, Cynthia Marler came to Washington to kill Wanda Touchstone … A decision that an inmate is conditionally parolable via a MAP does not qualify as a decision on the duration of confinement unless the MAP process occurs within a predictable time frame.

Wong Kee Jun v. City of Seattle

143 Wash. 479 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1927

establishing, if that be possible, a rule by which *481 litigants and trial courts may in future determine into which class a given case may fall. … Clearly they could not have recovered in that action for future or prospective injuries to their property.”

Feick v. Brutsche Family Revocable Trust

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 24, 2025

See generally Dkt. 8. 19 Additionally, neither case establishes RICO standing for personal injuries. See Dkt. 40 at 20 14. … the court orders they claim gives them absolute immunity, does not address the issue of 5 compliance with WSLCB procedures and running a marijuana company with an out of state 6 owner.”