Case law

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

Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. State Atty. Gen.

148 Wash. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 6, 2009

Clear Legal or Equitable Right ¶ 21 The GLBA establishes an obligation to protect financial customers' nonpublic information. … Instead, GLBA language clearly states that " any entity" that comes into possession of nonpublic personal information is considered a nonaffiliated third party and is subject to reuse provisions. ¶ 30 In Hodes v. U.S.

State v. Smith

108 Wash. App. 581 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 28, 2001

RCW 9A.44.150(1) clearly and unequivocally allows the court to consider the use of closed-circuit television only on motion of the prosecuting attorney. … The court then concluded that the prosecutor failed to establish that the child was unavailable.

Prince v. Mottman

84 Wash. 287 · Washington Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1915

Prince was qualified as executrix, and acted as such for several years; that she then endeavored to exercise an election to take under the law, and not under the will; that in pursuance of such election, she commenced actions … E. 672 , the distinction between the rights of a purchaser at a judicial sale not a party to the action, and a purchaser who was a party to the action, is clearly defined.

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.

Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. Anderson

903 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jan 26, 2011

This was a traditional section 1983 suit for unlawful arrest, clearly distinguishable from our case. Id. at 516 n. 8. Here, state action was taken directly against Mr. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

In Re The Estate Of Curtis E. Carlson, David Wands, Dds, Resp v. Dona Seely, Dds, Pet

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 14, 2019

Carlson was clearly in such a weakened state mentally and physically, that this Court finds he lacked legal capacity. … Carison’s established estate plan to exclude Dr. Seety from assuming his asset.

Bilbeisi v. Safeway

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 7, 2023

To do 20 so, he must establish that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the 21 position; (3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals 22 outside his … And there is a qualified privilege for intracorporate 22 communications, which are not “published” for purposes of defamation. Doe v.

Washington Central Railroad v. National Mediation Board

830 F. Supp. 1343 · District Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 25, 1993

Id. at 306, 64 S.Ct. at 99 . general, the conduct of RLA section 2, Ninth investigations is 'considered to be within the NMB’s discretion and therefore immune from judicial interference. … The RLA clearly speaks to the employees’ selection of their representative.

Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle

92 P.3d 243 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2004

We concluded that "[t]he civil service system established by the ordinance did not establish a civil service commission to conduct the investigative hearing required by statute, but, rather, established a police commission … Chapter 41.06 RCW was established by initiative in 1960, establishing a rule of two for state employees.

In Re Bottger's Estate

14 Wash. 2d 676 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1942

One does not have to be a literarian, a financial genius, an athlete, or an expert cook in order to qualify as possessing capacity to make a will. … These are all facts clearly established by the record in this proceeding, and of course Mrs. Bottger was aware of them without being told.

Pringle v. State

77 Wash. 2d 569 · Washington Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1970

Prior to April 1, 1959, a "sale at retail," as defined in RCW 82.04.050, clearly excluded the cleaning of furnaces. … The court's opinion, also, I think, takes a long and established administrative procedure too lightly.

State v. Clausing

56 P.3d 550 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 24, 2002

The word "physician" is not qualified by "licensed" in the pattern instruction. 11 WASHINGTON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS: CRIMINAL 55.03, at 693 (2d ed. 1994) (WPIC). … Williams' testimony was clearly a legal opinion. A pharmacist's opinion on the validity of a physician's prescriptions following a license suspension has relevance only as a question of law.

State v. Haq

166 Wash. App. 221 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 30, 2012

by a preponderance of the evidence.[ 2 ] ¶15 These statutes clearly provide that insanity is an affirmative defense that must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. … of proof required to establish insanity among the courts of many other states and the United States Supreme Court.

Felix W. Schuck v. Gordon Beck, et ux

Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 19, 2021

Of course, Pacific Steel and its employees enjoy immunity under worker compensation law, but the company and its employees have not been found negligent. … We must assess whether Tom Reinland’s activity qualifies as an abnormally dangerous activity.

State v. Horton

195 Wash. App. 202 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 26, 2016

Earls, 116 Wn.2d at 374-75 . ¶39 In Earls , our Supreme Court decided that the defendant “was repeatedly and clearly told of his right to have the assistance of an attorney. … Unlawful Possession of a Firearm ¶48 The issue of whether or not a Florida withheld adjudication qualifies as a predicate offense for unlawful possession of a firearm is an issue of first impression.

Skeens v. Astrue

903 F. Supp. 2d 1200 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Oct 9, 2012

Heilbrunn’s opinions in this respect, and therefore no error has been established. *1207 Dr. Brown’s Opinions The ALJ described the opinions of Dr. … As a final comment on the ALJ’s credibility analysis, the Court notes that the Plaintiff has not identified any particular testimony that he contends was either erroneously rejected or clearly establishes disability; indeed

Garrison First Family Ltd. Partnership v. Department of Health

128 Wash. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jul 7, 2005

. ¶9 DOH began issuing water system operating permits to PAWA in 1993, shortly after establishing the permitting program. … The party asserting invalidity bears the burden of establishing it. Former RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt.

Miller v. Howe Sound Min. Co.

77 F. Supp. 540 · District Court, E.D. Washington · May 11, 1948

A. § 1 et seq., in such a way as to change the status of freight forwarders and expressly granted them immunity from liability for past undercharges. … When it enacted the Portal-to-Portal Act, Congress was dealing with a subject matter, namely, the regulation of labor relationships affecting interstate commerce, which was clearly within its constitutional power.

Doe v. Bostock

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 6, 2024

Mandatory injunctions are “particularly disfavored,” and the “district court should 21 deny such relief ‘unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.’” … Because the only “discrimination” Petitioner identifies 2 is the failure “to receive effective treatment for her chronic PTSD and symptoms of 3 suicidal ideation” (TRO Mot. at 19), Petitioner fails to establish that