106 Wash. 2d
Volume 106 — Washington Reports, Second Series
76 opinions
- 106 Wash. 2d 1Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 23Crunk v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 32Harman v. Pierce County Building Department (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 39State v. Howard (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 47West Main Associates v. City of Bellevue (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 54State v. Gunwall (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 73Mele v. Turner (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 84Clark v. HORSE RACING COMMISSION (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 96Postlewait Constr., Inc. v. Great American Ins. Companies (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 102Clarke v. Shoreline School District No. 412 (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 122Jordan v. City of Oakville (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 135Kitsap County v. Kev, Inc. (1986)
<bold>[1] Nuisance — Public Nuisance — What Constitutes.</bold> An activity which is conducted in plain violation of state or local laws, or which affects an entire neighborhood by violating the comfort, repose, health, or safety of others, is a public nuisance. <bold>[2] Constitutional Law — Injunction — Prior Restraint — Existing</bold> <bold>Violation.</bold> An injunction may properly prohibit natural and corporate persons from continuing or resuming activities determined to be violations of law or to be public nuisances, but may not prohibit such persons from engaging in other activities solely on the basis that they may possibly involve breaches of the law.
- 106 Wash. 2d 144State v. Stroud (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 176State v. Hughes (1986)
<bold>[1] Homicide — Jury — Death Penalty — Questioning of Prospective</bold> <bold>Jurors — Validity.</bold> Examination of prospective jurors in a death penalty case to determine whether their beliefs on capital punishment disqualify them does not deny the defendant his constitutional right to a representative and unbiased jury. <bold>[2] Homicide — Self-Defense — Subjective Standard —</bold> <bold>Reasonableness.</bold> A defendant's subjective belief that he is in danger and that self-defense is necessary must be reasonable in order to justify his killing of another. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Trial — Instructions — Theory of Case.</bold> Each party in a criminal case is entitled to have instructions on his theory of the case if it is supported by substantial evidence. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Self-Defense — Aggressor — Drawing of Weapon</bold> <bold>by Police.</bold> A defendant who shoots at a police officer before being shot at is the aggressor, for purposes of the rule rendering self-defense unavailable to an aggressor, even though the police officer has drawn his weapon, where the police officer's use of his weapon was part of a lawful arrest. <bold>[5] Trial — Instructions — Exception — Necessity.</bold> The failure to take an exception to an instruction precludes a later claim that the instruction was defective.<page_number>Page 177</page_number> <bold>[6] Trial — Instructions — Comment on Evidence — In General.</bold> An instruction does not constitute an impermissible comment on the evidence if there is substantial evidence to support it and it is an accurate statement of the law. <bold>[7] Criminal Law — Trial — Misconduct of Prosecutor — Prejudice</bold> <bold>— In General.</bold> A defendant has the burden of proving that a prosecutor's argument is improper and that prejudice results. <bold>[8] Criminal Law — Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Sufficiency</bold> <bold>of Evidence — In General.</bold> Evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict if, viewing the evidence most favorably to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. <bold>[9] Evidence — Balancing Relevance and Prejudice — Discretion of</bold> <bold>Court.</bold> A trial judge has wide discretion in balancing the probative effect of relevant evidence against its possible prejudicial effect under ER 403. <bold>[10] Criminal Law — Punishment — Judicial Discretion —</bold> <bold>Necessity.</bold> Within the limitations of the state and federal constitutions, the Legislature may eliminate judicial discretion in imposing criminal sentences. <bold>[11] Jury — Conduct — Attentiveness — Discretion of Court.</bold> Whether juror inattentiveness has prejudiced a defendant is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. The ruling in the trial court is final unless objection is made to preserve a claim of error. <bold>[12] Criminal Law — Trial — Misconduct of Prosecutor — Waiver.</bold> A defendant cannot complain about a prosecutor's final argument including facts which the defendant introduced into the case by his own testimony.
- 106 Wash. 2d 206State v. Huft (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 212Bering v. Share (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 261Federal Way Family Physicians, Inc. v. Tacoma Stands Up for Life (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 269In Re the Estate of Little (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 290Norco Construction, Inc. v. King County (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 298Smith v. Jackson (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 304Templeton v. Peoples National Bank (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 312Adams v. University of Washington (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 328Burlingame v. Consolidated Mines and Smelting Co., Ltd. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 340State v. Lavaris (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 347Fakkema v. ISLAND CTY. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 347Fakkema v. Island County Public Transportation Benefit Area (1986)
<bold>[1] Municipal Corporations — Public Transportation Benefit Area</bold> <bold>— Revised Boundaries — Statutory Requirements — Degree of</bold> <bold>Compliance.</bold> A revision of the boundaries of a public transportation benefit area is valid if it is in substantial compliance with the statutory requirements for creating such a benefit area (RCW <cross_reference>36.57A.020</cross_reference>-.030, <cross_reference>36.57A.050</cross_reference>), <italic>i.e.</italic>, if the procedure used satisfies all the basic statutory objectives. <bold>[2] Elections — Municipal Corporations — Public Transportation</bold> <bold>Benefit Area — Nonresident's Right To Vote.</bold> Neither the equal protection clause (U.S. Const. amend. 14) nor the right of equal suffrage (Const. art. 1, § 19) gives a person residing outside of a public transportation benefit area the right to vote in an election on a sales tax to be levied within the benefit area for the purpose of financing a public transportation system within the benefit area.
- 106 Wash. 2d 355Joinette v. LOCAL 20, HOTEL AND MOTEL RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS UNION (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 368Bradford v. Data Processing Joint Board (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 376Deeter v. Smith (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 380Snyder v. Munro (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 391Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 408Yaw v. WALLA WALLA SCHOOL DIST. (1986)
<bold>[1] Arbitration — Statutory Mandate — Agreement To Mediate —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> RCW 7.04.010, which makes an agreement to arbitrate "enforceable and irrevocable", and case law which prevents a party from unilaterally bringing an action if there is an unfulfilled promise to arbitrate, are not applicable to an agreement to seek mediation of disagreements. <bold>[2] Contracts — Nonjudicial Resolution of Disputes —</bold> <bold>Prerequisite to Litigation.</bold> Courts will not require exact compliance with contractual procedures for resolving disputes, as a prerequisite to judicial relief, if substantial compliance has occurred, circumstances beyond the control of at least one of the parties have prevented exact compliance, and exact compliance would likely not resolve the dispute. <bold>[3] Schools and School Districts — Judicial Review — Scope — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> Judicial review of a school board's decision is limited to whether the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law unless the board acted in a quasi-judicial manner, in which case the review is de novo. <bold>[4] Schools and School Districts — Judicial Review — Historical</bold> <bold>Court Functions — Personnel Matters.</bold> Employment rights based on contract have been historically enforced by the courts, and a school board decision respecting an employment right established in a collective bargaining agreement will be reviewed de novo by the courts.<page_number>Page 409</page_number>
- 106 Wash. 2d 417State v. Binder (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 420Rose v. Erickson (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 425Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma v. Griffith (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 443Smith v. King (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 455Hi-Starr, Inc. v. Liquor Control Board (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 466Eastwood v. Cascade Broadcasting Co. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 474Emsley v. Army National Guard (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 486Abulhosn v. Department of Employment Security (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 493In Re Personal Restraint of Hunter (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 500McCarthy v. Schuoler (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 514State v. Nordby (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 525State v. Oxborrow (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 547State v. Armstrong (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 557Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Department of Revenue (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 569City of Bremerton v. Corbett (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 581City of Buckley v. Burlington Northern Railroad Corp. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 588Brazier Forest Products, Inc. v. Northern Transport, Inc. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 607State v. Malone (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 614Fluke Capital & Management Services Co. v. Richmond (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 626Tooley v. Stevenson Co-Ply, Inc. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 632Backlund v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING CTY. HOSP. DIST. NO. 2 (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 649Estate of Turner v. Department of Revenue (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 658Younce v. Ferguson (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 669Frost v. City of Walla Walla (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 675Oliver v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 685Washington Irrigation & Development Co. v. Sherman (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 695High Tide Seafoods v. State (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 707East Gig Harbor Improvement Association v. Pierce County (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 714Frickel v. Sunnyside Enterprises, Inc. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 738Kruger v. Horton (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 745State v. Purdom (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 754Frazier v. Superintendent of Public Instruction (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 760Folsom v. County of Spokane (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 772State v. Smith (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 784State v. Harris (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 806Villella v. Public Employees Mutual Insurance (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 822Fuller v. Department of Retirement Systems (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 826Fisher Properties, Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 855Schoeman v. New York Life Insurance (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 868Burien Bark Supply v. King County (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 873Sherman v. Moloney (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 885State v. Hahn (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 901E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (1986)
- 106 Wash. 2d 911Cagle v. Burns and Roe, Inc. (1986)