Case law

Rizzuti v. Basin Travel Service of Othello, Inc.

125 Wash. App. 602 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 3, 2005

The memorandum of insurance and the blanket policy clearly state that the automatic transportation policy covered only tickets issued and reported to the ARC by Basin. … Any act that qualifies as an unfair claims settlement practice in WAC 284-30-330 constitutes a per se unfair trade practice impacting public interest. Id. at 20-21 (citing Kallevig, 114 Wn.2d at 923 ).

Davis v. Cox

Washington Supreme Court · May 28, 2015

This initial statute grants speakers immunity from claims based on the speaker's communication to a governmental entity regarding any matter reasonably of concern to the governmental entity. … On this disputed material fact, when the superior court resolved the anti-SLAPP motion, it weighed the evidence and found the defendants' "evidence clearly shows that the Israel boycott and divestment movement is a national

Sane Transit v. Sound Transit

85 P.3d 346 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 4, 2004

RCW 29.79.035(1) requires the ballot title to contain a concise description which "must ... clearly identify the proposition to be voted on." See also RCW 29.27.066. … Rather, it complied with these statutes. [7] Though a corollary to the last antecedent rule provides "the presence of a comma before the qualifying phrase is evidence the qualifier is intended to apply to all antecedents

Stephenson v. Kitsap County

District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 16, 2020

Here, although plaintiff qualifies financially to proceed IFP, his proposed complaint 22 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as discussed herein. … Plaintiff may also establish municipal liability by demonstrating that the 9 alleged constitutional violation was caused by a failure to train municipal employees adequately. 10 See City of Canton, Ohio v.

Collis v. Kijakazi

District Court, E.D. Washington · Feb 16, 2023

Zook were to qualify only as a “nonmedical source.” … Conclusion 11 Plaintiff establishes the ALJ reversibly erred. However, questions of fact 12 remain; the record does not clearly establish that Plaintiff is disabled.

Utter v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SER.

165 P.3d 399 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 21, 2007

. ¶ 14 Utter contends that "[his] state constitutional claim is the only clearly recognized basis under the APA in this case." Br. of Resp't at 16. … Based on well-established policy, we decline Utter's request to do so. State v.

Kollar v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 16, 2019

establish 22 that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit 23 decision. … Sun Life acknowledged that it was 18 “possible” that Kollar would qualify for benefits “if proof of Total Disability was provided 19 following [Kollar’s] work shift and before 11:59:59.”

Lasure v. McDonough

District Court, E.D. Washington · Dec 20, 2022

Regardless, the FTCA does not 8 waive sovereign immunity for these claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). As a result, 9 these claims are dismissed with prejudice. 10 III. … Plaintiff may submit an 14 amended complaint within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order which must 15 include sufficient facts to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and articulate 16 causes of action

State v. Scott

207 P.3d 495 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 27, 2009

Without first establishing whether MJ's recantation was credible, the superior court denied the motion. Id. at 219, 896 P.2d 108 . Division Three of our court reversed. … Fernlund's statement is clearly a recantation of his earlier statement to police: He now affirmatively admits to having earlier lied about seeing Scott having sex with DH in order to "get [Scott] locked up."

Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States of America

District Court, W.D. Washington · Sep 29, 2022

United States v. 12 City of Los Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 403 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations omitted).3 13 Because the Tribe timely moved to intervene and its defense that it is an immune, indispensable 14 … Therefore, the fact that Plaintiff moved for summary judgment 8 before the Court suspended the briefing schedule does not alter the Court’s analysis. 9 Plaintiff also fails to establish prejudice.

State v. Linton

36 Wash. 2d 67 · Washington Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1950

exhibit, called a statement, which opens with the following: “I, Ralph Linton, make the following statement and confession of my own free will and accord, without threat of any kind being made to me or without any promise of immunity … The court clearly submitted the question to the jury and permitted them to find defendant guilty of assault in either the second or third degree.

State ex rel. Olympia v. Olympia Light & Power Co.

91 Wash. 519 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1916

S. 265 : “ ‘It has been settled by this court that the state may authorize one of its municipal corporations to establish, by an inviolable contract the rates to be charged by a public service corporation (or natural person … But for the very reason that such a contract has the effect of extinguishing pro tanto an undoubted power of government, both its existence and the authority to make it must clearly and unmistakably appear, and all doubts

Chad Wayne Hurn, V. Department Of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Washington · May 10, 2022

We hold that Hurn fails to establish a violation of his federal constitutional rights. … The second question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

State Ex Rel. Lumber & Sawmill Workers v. Superior Court

24 Wash. 2d 314 · Washington Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1945

F. of L. organizations, which are clearly outside of the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining under the national labor relations board act, with the em *321 ployers of the members of the C. … , or administrative acts of the various states under the scope' of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution which provides: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

State v. Mayer

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 22, 2015

The "at any time" statement thus did not immunize Dennison's warnings against the defects created by his later responses to Mayer's questions. C. … In this case, the State presented overwhelming untainted evidence at trial establishing that Mayer was one of the robbers.

In Re Heard

963 P.2d 818 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1998

The effect of the sanction on the attorney (sanction must not be clearly excessive); 4. … We cannot say, from the record, that the evidence clearly preponderates against the trial committee's findings, and we will, therefore, accept them.

State v. Scott

150 Wash. App. 281 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 27, 2009

Without first establishing whether MJ’s recantation was credible, the superior court denied the motion. Id. at 219 . Division Three of our court reversed. … Fernlund’s statement is clearly a recantation of his earlier statement to police: He now affirmatively admits to having earlier lied about seeing Scott having sex with DH in order to “get [Scott] locked up.”

State v. Leyda

157 Wash. 2d 335 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 20, 2006

The State responds that because RCW 9.35.020 prohibits “use” of another’s identification or information, it is apparent that the legislature intended that each use of the stolen identification or financial information “qualifies … We interpret the legislature’s decision to add the words “obtain” and “possess” to the statute as its attempt to combat the rapidly expanding identity theft problem by more clearly defining and broadening the way in which

State v. Humphries

Washington Supreme Court · Oct 23, 2014

Ed. 2d 574 (1997) ("there can be no question that evidence of the name or nature of the prior offense [necessary to establish a prior qualifying conviction] generally carries a risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant" … A stipulation is clearly less prejudicial than the proof of prior robberies.

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Miller

20 Wash. 21 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1898

follows: “ By the first section of the act the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, appertaining *28 to the main line between Wallula, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, is forfeited. “ This renders it necessary to establish … It was clearly pointed out in the case of Buttz v. Railroad Co., 119 U. S. 55 (7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100).