Case law

State v. Riofta

209 P.3d 467 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 11, 2009

The prosecutor presented evidence of Riofta's link to the Trang Dai defendants to establish motive for the shooting. … Our statute was drafted to qualify Washington for federal funding under the Justice For All Act of 2004. Pub.L. No. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2260, 2261-62.

Bostain v. Food Express, Inc.

159 Wash. 2d 700 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 1, 2007

. *720 ¶38 Food Express has not established that MWA’s overtime provisions create irreconcilable obligations. … Ed. 2d 275 (1989). ¶40 Here, the Bostains point out, overtime under the MWA applies to Washington-based employees, and it is difficult to conceive of circumstances where one who does not qualify as the employer of a Washington-based

State v. Michielli

937 P.2d 587 · Washington Supreme Court · May 29, 1997

The Supreme Court of Florida determined that the defendant's forging checks did not qualify as trafficking in stolen property. … In contrast to the facts in Camp, Michielli's selling three stolen items to a pawnshop qualifies as trafficking.

Grant v. Evans

160 Wash. 399 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1931

That at the general election to be held in King County on November 6, 1928, an election shall be held at which there shall be submitted to the qualified voters of said King County the following proposition which shall appear … in the way of establishing such hospital.

State Of Washington v. Tamas Hibszki

Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 2015

App. 766, 772, 247 P.3d 11 (2011) (holding even if a locomotive is not a "railway car" it still qualifies as a "building" under the ordinary meaning of the term); State v. Tyson. 33 Wn. … Jury Instructions Hibszki asserts the jury instructions did not clearly state that the State has the burden of proving accomplice liability beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Trask

91 Wash. App. 253 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 29, 1998

The value of the land was established at a jury trial. … The relocation benefits *275 statute, RCW 8.26.035, clearly contemplates reimbursement instead of, or at least as an alternative to, advancement.

In Re Welfare of Shantay Cj

91 P.3d 909 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 8, 2004

Burdge further testified that the parents were on a waiting list to get into therapeutic daycare but, due to drug use or incarceration, the parents did not qualify for the program. … (f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes that child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.

Southwest Washington Production Credit Ass'n v. Seattle-First National Bank

19 Wash. App. 397 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 28, 1978

We cannot accept this conclusion because (a) it is not supported by the evidence and (b) the Baker PCA case is clearly distinguishable. … Clearly that situation is not present in the case before us.

Yu

District Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 4, 2026

The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish a genuine issue of 19 material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). … Accordingly, the Court need 2 not reach Defendant’s alternative argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 3 III.

City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company

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

The proponent of expert testimony has the burden of establishing that 3 the admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 592 n.10; see 4 also Lust v. … Expert testimony is not excluded for relevancy where 6 “it speaks clearly and directly to an issue in dispute in the case, and . . . it will not mislead the 7 jury.”

Intalco Aluminum Corp. v. Department of Labor & Industries

66 Wash. App. 644 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 27, 1992

The court continued: Thus, a cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists. … That Ferebee's case may have been the first of its exact type, or that his doctors may have been the first alert enough to recognize such a case, does not mean that the testimony of those doctors, who are concededly well qualified

State v. Trask

957 P.2d 781 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 1998

The value of the land was established at a jury trial. … The relocation benefits statute, RCW 8.26.035, clearly contemplates reimbursement instead of, or at least as an alternative to, advancement.

Kesler v. Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 31, 2022

The party 23 24 1 offering expert testimony bears the burden of establishing … He explains in his report how he reached that conclusion, see Dkt. 39-2 at 3 28–29, and it is not clearly the result of unsubstantiated beliefs or speculation.

Greene v. Young

113 Wash. App. 746 · 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 … most 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

Guimont v. City of Seattle

77 Wash. App. 74 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 27, 1995

If the owner is unable to establish a taking under this analysis, we proceed to the due process analysis. … As noted above, this interest is clearly legitimate. To further this interest, it passed the Ordinance in an effort to preserve increasingly scarce mobile home lots.

Hexacta Inc v. Baran

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 20, 2019

There was clearly a material alteration in the legal relationship between the 13 parties. Before the action, Plaintiffs were unlawfully present, subject to deportation, and accruing 14 unlawful presence. … But, the result is certainly strong evidence that Defendants have not carried 6 their burden of establishing that the position was substantially justified here. 7 D.

Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County

95 Wash. App. 883 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 28, 1999

The issue in Beach was whether a verbatim record of proceedings was required to establish an adequate record for review. … The court, however, qualified its holding, noting that not all conceivable uses allowed by the laws in effect at the time of application vested, but only those “specific use[s]” disclosed in the application.

Richard Wilkinson v. Washington Medical Commission

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 16, 2025

The Respondent has clearly violated commonly accepted standards of honesty. … Wilkinson’s favor even if the blog qualifies as the practice of medicine.

State v. Montgomery

163 Wash. 2d 577 · Washington Supreme Court · May 15, 2008

Having established that the witness has an opinion, the trial attorney may ask for the opinion. … The record does not establish actual prejudice. 9 See id. at 937 .

Sanborn v. Kale

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 22, 2021

Most of these authorities either clearly do 18 not apply or cannot be vindicated by a private right of action. For instance, plaintiff cites Fed. R. 19 Civ. … Therefore, quasi-judicial immunity bars a suit for damages 22 against defendant Weber, even if the Court found that plaintiff stated a claim against that official 23