Case law

Lane v. Washington Department of Corrections

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 2, 2020

Additionally, there is no evidence 12 the State of Washington has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts. 13 Therefore, the Washington Department of Corrections for Women, as an arm of the state, cannot … This causal link is established either by the direct personal participation of the supervisor 11 or by the supervisor’s initiation of a “series of acts by others which the actor knows or 12 reasonably should know would

National General Insurance Company, App V. Andrew Hamblin

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 26, 2022

National objected noting that Dietz was not qualified as an accident reconstruction expert. … National’s deposit of an amount it determined was the extent of its liability did not immunize the company from Hamblin’s claims. National, citing Norris v. Church & Co., Inc., 115 Wn.

State v. Ha'Mim

940 P.2d 633 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1997

As to this, the standard of review is clearly erroneous. 2. Do the reasons justify a departure from the standard range? This question is reviewed de novo as a matter of law. 3. … The problem with this argument is that the Legislature did allow exceptional sentences for some first-time offenders and Defendant Ha'mim did not qualify for such leniency. RCW 9.94A.120(5).

Colacurcio v. City of Kent

944 F. Supp. 1470 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 1, 1996

The patron can see and hear the dancer more clearly, and has a better opportunity to smell the “breath, perfume and the scent of the body.” Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief at 7. … McLaughlin has no specialized knowledge, skill, training, education, or experience that would qualify him to offer an opinion on the purpose of the ordinance.

State v. Gibbons

118 Wash. 171 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1922

These events, established beyond dispute by the state’s own witnesses, we have felt the necessity of relating in considerable detail, to the end that the premise-up on which we are to decide whether or not the seizure of … secured to him by the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the UMted States, providing that no person in any criminal case shall he compelled to he a witness against himself.’ ” If it he the law, as it clearly is, that

SCHOOL DISTRICTS'ALLIANCE v. State

244 P.3d 1 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2010

In short, section 507 clearly states that special education funding is given to special education students in addition to their receipt of the BEA. … Presumptions create probabilities; "[e]videntiary presumptions exist because the establishment of an intermediate fact more probably than not establishes the ultimate fact, and the intermediate fact is more capable of proof

State ex rel. J.V.G. v. Van Guilder

137 Wash. App. 417 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 5, 2007

Subsection (l)(d) of that statute is the only place where such a limitation is discussed and it qualifies that limitation, stating that a deviation is inappropriate if it “will result in insufficient funds in the household … tuition payments should not have been considered as part of the deviation determination because such payments are extraordinary expenses not considered part of the standard child support calculation. 19 In In re Yeamans, we clearly

Joseph M. Thompson v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.

438 P.3d 533 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 9, 2019

Thompson’s motion for summary judgment and the final judgment establishing attorney fees and costs. … Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

Rocio Trujillo v. Northwest Trustee Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 2014

The language of the first sentence of RCW 61.24.030(7)(a) could have more clearly stated that a beneficiary who is the owner of a note is not always the holder of the note. The holder is entitled to enforce it. … this case 78 Id, at 4-5 (footnote omitted). 79 See Bain, 175 Wn.2d at 103-04; Whitman, supra note 43, at 26 n.23. 21 No. 70592-0-1/22 is inadequate to establish

Canal Station Condominium Assn, Resp. v. Ballard Leary Phase Ii, Lp, Et Ano.

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 23, 2013

In the alternative, Ballard Leary requested that the trial court bifurcate the case and stay the premature issues until the Association established liability and damages. … as "affiliates" of the Declarant, and/or pursuant to RCW 19.40.011(7) qualify as "insiders" of Declarant and one another.

Miller v. Thurston County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Nov 14, 2024

Id. 4 This evidence establishes probable cause to believe Mr. Miller had committed the crime 5 of malicious mischief. The Officers’ decision to arrest Mr. … immunity from suit, and Thurston County argues 17 that Mr.

Brown v. MacPherson's, Inc.

86 Wash. 2d 293 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1975

He who deals with an agent of the government must look to his authority, which will not be presumed but must be established. … To convert that agency into a “watch-dog” type land-planning agency, when the legislature has clearly foreclosed such path of action, to me, is judicially impermissible.

State v. Jones

149 P.3d 636 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 28, 2006

U.S.C. § 924 (e), a later court could look to police reports or complaint applications in determining whether a guilty plea in an earlier criminal proceeding formed the basis for a conviction of "generic" burglary, thereby qualifying … Apprendi , to say that Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute." Id. at 25, 125 S.Ct. 1254 . ¶ 27 Police reports and complaint applications are not at issue here.

Hargis v. Mel-Mad Corporation

46 Wash. App. 146 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 9, 1986

Here, the conduct of the parties clearly indicates they intended to treat the lease as terminated or forfeited. Moore v. Northwest Fabricators, Inc., 51 Wn.2d 26, 29 , 314 P.2d 941 (1957). … However, RCW 60.10.070 states: "The *156 fact that a better price could have been obtained by a sale . . . in a different method from that selected by the lien holder is not of itself sufficient to establish that the sale

State Of Washington v. Jeffrey David Conaway

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 1, 2021

-2- No. 80214-3-I/3 docket, finding that the dismissed conviction qualified as a conviction for the prior conviction element of felony exposure. … App. 708, 714, 620 P.2d 1001 (1980) (the court misstated the law when it restricted the definition of great bodily harm, therefore, the “court clearly indicated to the jury that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority v. Miller

156 Wash. 2d 403 · Washington Supreme Court · Feb 16, 2006

This would make agencies nearly immune from judicial review of public use. … Only by adopting a rubber-stamp standard of review at odds with article I, section 16 and relevant case law can the majority look the *439 other way. 19 To rely upon clearly erroneous factual information of such magnitude

John Cummings v. Seattle School District

Court of Appeals of Washington · Dec 23, 2013

The District scored Cummings as highly qualified in math in an April 2009 form. … DISCUSSION We review the factual determinations of the hearing officer under the "'clearly erroneous'" standard. Clarke v. Shoreline School Dist.

Sara Maynard, V. John And Mary Maynard, Respondent's

Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 14, 2022

) Next, Sara argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her claims against Holmes on the basis of litigation immunity. … As for the imposition of sanctions under CR 11, we do not reverse the trial court’s finding that many of Sara’s allegations against Holmes are frivolous as they are clearly barred by the statute of limitations.

In the Matter of the Detention of: Justin J. Mackey

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 30, 2024

We conclude sufficient evidence was presented to support both means of being qualified as an SVP, that Mr. … MACKEY COULD QUALIFY AS AN SVP Mr.

The Estate of Nicholas Ellingson v. City of Auburn

District Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 3, 2025

Even if Crich and Ellingson were in a committed intimate 16 relationship, Crich still would not qualify to be a beneficiary under Section 4.20.010. … To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a duty owed 17 to her; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a resulting injury; and (4) that the breach was the proximate 18 cause of the injury.