Case law

In Re Dependency of Grove

127 Wash. 2d 221 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1995

RCW 10.101 does not limit its effect to those cases in which a constitutional, as opposed to a statutory, right to counsel attaches, but by its terms clearly includes those cases in which the Legislature has itself determined … We have held that the rights guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and this state’s privileges and immunities clause, Const. art.

In re the Marriage of Fahey

164 Wash. App. 42 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 20, 2011

Based on these portions of the parenting plan, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the 2002 parenting plan established Lisa as the primary residential parent. 9 And because the trial court determined … The record does not clearly indicate whether Shannon meant that she did not want to move (1) from Puyallup, (2) from Edmonds, (3) to Omak, or (4) from her then current school.

State v. Brent

28 Wash. 2d 501 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1947

However, the highlights must be stated to establish the requisite background. At the time of the tragedy, Mrs. … He qualified as an assistant to the prosecutor of Island county by filing his written appointment and oath of office, and at all times acted in that capacity.

State v. Davis

176 Wash. App. 849 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 20, 2013

He stipulated at trial to a prior qualifying conviction necessary to prove second degree unlawful possession of a firearm. However, citing Callahan, State v. Spruell, 57 Wn. … excessive or clearly too lenient. ¶53 RCW 9.94A.585(4)(a) has both a factual and a legal component.

Debra Jean Blum v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital at Pasco, d/b/a Lourdes Health Network

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 27, 2013

The declaration established that Dr. Palmer saw and examined Ms. … The rule clearly requires a party to demonstrate its need for the continuance by affidavit.

Hollenback v. SHRINERS HOSPITALS

206 P.3d 337 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 30, 2009

Dudley, 140 Wash.2d 58, 77 , 993 P.2d 901 (2000), the Supreme Court held that a cause of action for wrongful discharge could be based on the clearly articulated public policy against sex discrimination found in the WLAD, … chapter 49.20 RCW, and RCW 49.60.010. ¶ 49 To qualify as a public policy for purposes of the wrongful discharge tort, a policy must be "truly public" and sufficiently clear.

Young v. Savidge

155 Wash. App. 806 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 27, 2010

[Chapter 7.70 RCW] clearly states that [it] modifies procedural and substantive aspects of all civil actions for damages for injury occurring as a result of health care, regardless of how the action is characterized.” … “[T]he learned professions are not immune [under ]chapter 7.70 RCW[] from CPA claims.” Wright, 104 Wn.

In Re Dependency of Penelope B.

104 Wash. 2d 643 · Washington Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1985

No particular age group is immune to sexual abuse, nor are the offenders confined to any particular class of persons. Indeed, more often than not, the offender is a parent, relative, or an acquaintance of the child. … The record clearly indicates that in making her assertions the child was relating past events and states of mind.

Flenaugh

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

A complaint needs to clearly set forth the “who, what, where, when, and why” 7 necessary for the Court to understand what a plaintiff is alleging. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft 8 v. … While the Court construes Flenaugh’s complaint liberally, 12 there is nothing in the complaint establishing a cognizable legal theory for which relief may be 13 granted. Shroyer, 622 F.3d at 1041.

Schaaf v. Highfield

127 Wash. 2d 17 · Washington Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1995

Although the Haberman court did not attempt to specify what would constitute the "limited group” in this case, the court clearly intended to limit the plaintiff class in actions under § 552. … We held that the evidence before the trial court did not establish misrepresentation.

Homeward Bound In Puyallup, V. Central Puget Sound Growth Manage

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 27, 2022

“The board shall find compliance unless it determines that the action by the state agency, county, or city is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements … No. 55560-3-II land use decisions because [those] decisions do not qualify as comprehensive plans or development regulations.’” Spokane County, 176 Wn.

State Of Washington, V. Matthew John Jagger

Court of Appeals of Washington · Sep 3, 2024

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, these are individually somewhat suggestive of intent to have a sexual relationship, and taken together are clearly so. … Because Rivera is not controlling in cases where the right to a peremptory challenge is established by state law, state courts have diverged in the wake of Rivera.

State v. Korsakas

Washington Supreme Court · May 21, 2026

Korsakas does not allege facts that, if true, establish such a conflict. … Furthermore, the record clearly shows that upon denying Korsakas’ motion, the court immediately reengaged with Korsakas’ counsel to assist the court with Korsakas’ sentencing.

State v. Bromley

72 Wash. 2d 150 · Washington Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1967

The witness is, however, allowed to summarize what he has heard in the community, although much of it may have been said by persons less qualified to judge than himself. … The very statute (RCW 9.01.112), under which defendant claimed his immunity from punishment, emphasizes the idea that the danger must be immediate and imminent: Whenever any crime, except murder, is committed or participated

State v. Reynolds

535 P.3d 427 · Washington Supreme Court · Sep 21, 2023

The State, on the other hand, claims that “[a]pproximately 25 states impose mandatory LWOP upon a second, third or fourth conviction for a qualifying offense under some circumstances.” Suppl. Br. of Resp’t at 27. … Our court’s juvenile jurisprudence has already established that crimes committed by juveniles must be analyzed with respect to their age and must be analyzed differently from the same crimes committed by adults.

Point Allen Service Area v. WASH. STATE DOH

115 P.3d 373 · 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.

Stuart Robinson v. St Francis Hospital

District Court, W.D. Washington · Jun 3, 2024

Francis Hospital, is a private (i.e., non-governmental) 15 entity.1 To establish that a private party’s actions amount to state action, a plaintiff must satisfy at 16 least one of four tests: (1) the public function … Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 For that reason, any amended complaint must clearly identify the defendant(s), the claim(s) 14 asserted, the specific facts that Ms.

State v. Fleming

228 P.3d 804 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 13, 2010

Regarding its ruling on the customer contact document, the trial court stated: [The customer contact notes are] clearly a routine business record kept by this business, and it's clerical in nature, documenting events that … NOTES [1] RCW 5.45.020 states: A record of an act, condition or event, shall in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation

Christiania Trust v. Steven M. Miller, et ux

Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 5, 2015

The federal program under which the Millers sought a modification requires that a borrower be qualified for the modification that he or she seeks. … The defense of absolute privilege or immunity avoids all liability ." McNeal v. Allen, 95 Wn.2d 265, 267,621 P.2d 1285 (1980) (citation omitted) (citing Gold Seal Chinchillas, Inc. v.

State Of Washington v. Kevin R. Case

Court of Appeals of Washington · Aug 6, 2019

The Supreme Court subsequently reversed our decision, holding that Case’s stipulation was sufficient to establish that he had two prior qualifying convictions under RCW 26.50.110(5). 187 Wn.2d at 91-92. … However, RCW 9.94A.530(2) clearly provides that once a defendant objects to the State’s proof of his prior convictions, the trial court must either (1) not consider the facts offered by the State or (2) grant an evidentiary