107 Wash. 2d
Volume 107 — Washington Reports, Second Series
65 opinions
- 107 Wash. 2d 1State v. Kennedy (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 26Drake v. Molvik & Olsen Electric, Inc. (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 43Porter v. Porter (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 59State v. Pacheco (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 72Tyson v. Tyson (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 97State v. Hieb (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 112Blue Sky Advocates v. State (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 127Baughn v. Honda Motor Co. (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 153State v. Prok (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 158Watson v. Hockett (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 170Guntheroth v. Rodaway (1986)
<bold>[1] Libel and Slander — Summary Judgment — Prima Facie Case —</bold> <bold>Necessity.</bold> The plaintiff in a defamation action must establish a prima facie case by at least a preponderance of the evidence in order to defeat a summary judgment motion. <bold>[2] Libel and Slander — Fault — Negligence Standard — In</bold> <bold>General.</bold> The negligence standard of fault, as an element of a defamation cause of action, requires proof of the failure to exercise reasonable care.
- 107 Wash. 2d 181American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Tacoma v. McCaffrey (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 196In Re the Detention of LaBelle (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 225City of Olympia v. Palzer (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 232Couch v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 246In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Selden (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 263In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Malone (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 276In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Rentel (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 300Nast v. Michels (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 314Morris v. International Yogurt Co. (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 331State v. Hansen (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 335In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Talbot (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 338Klauder v. SAN JUAN CTY. DEPUTY SHERIFFS'GUILD (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 338Klauder v. San Juan County Deputy Sheriffs' Guild (1986)
<bold>[1] Labor Relations — Public Employment — Arbitration — Interest</bold> <bold>Arbitration — Continuation in Future Collective Bargaining</bold> <bold>Agreement.</bold> When establishing the terms of a future collective bargaining agreement pursuant to an interest arbitration provision in the current agreement, an arbitrator has no authority under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act (RCW 41.56) or the National Labor Relations Act (<cross_reference>29 U.S.C. § 151</cross_reference> <italic>et seq.</italic>) to include an interest arbitration provision in the future agreement without the agreement of both parties. <bold>[2] Labor Relations — Public Employment — Collective Bargaining</bold> <bold>— Oral Agreement — Validity.</bold> Under RCW <cross_reference>41.56.030</cross_reference>(4), which requires written collective bargaining agreements between public employers and their employees, an oral agreement between the parties is unenforceable. UTTER, J., did not participate in the disposition of this case.
- 107 Wash. 2d 346State v. Knapstad (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 359West Valley Land Co. v. Nob Hill Water Ass'n (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 370Convention Center Coalition v. City of Seattle (1986)
<bold>[1] Statutes — Construction — Legislative Intent — Legislative</bold> <bold>History — Statement of Legislator.</bold> The intent of a legislative body in enacting a statute or ordinance cannot be determined from the statements of an individual legislator. <bold>[2] Municipal Corporations — Ordinances — Legislative or</bold> <bold>Administrative Act — Test.</bold> An enactment by a local legislative body is legislative in nature if it sets out a new policy or plan. It is administrative if it executes an existing policy or plan. <bold>[3] Statutes — Validity — Police Power — Test.</bold> In determining if a legislative enactment is a valid exercise of the police power of a governmental entity, the courts must examine the relationship of it to the public purpose to be served, presuming that if facts can be reasonably conceived which warrant the enactment, they were known to the Legislature. Such an enactment is valid unless its opponents show it to be arbitrary and capricious beyond a reasonable<page_number>Page 371</page_number> doubt. <bold>[4] Constitutional Law — Equal Protection — Classifications —</bold> <bold>Rational Relationship — Determination.</bold> The rational relationship test is applied in an equal protection challenge to a legislative enactment not involving either a suspect classification or a fundamental right. The court is required to determine if all members of a class are treated alike, if there is some reasonable basis for distinguishing between those in and those out of the class, and whether the classification is rationally related to the purpose of the legislation.
- 107 Wash. 2d 381Rodriguez v. Williams (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 388Willener v. Sweeting (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 403State v. Hampton (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 410Conklin v. Shinpoch (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 427Green River Community College District No. 10 v. Higher Education Personnel Board (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 444Lawson v. State (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 468Hansen v. Rothaus (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 479In Re the Marriage of Matson (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 493In Re the Estate of Crawford (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 503Addleman v. Board of Prison Terms and Paroles (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 512In Re the Personal Restraint of Mayner (1986)
- 107 Wash. 2d 524Caruso v. LOCAL 690 INTERNL. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 541Alger v. City of Mukilteo (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 553Walter Implement, Inc. v. Focht (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 563Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 584George v. Parke-Davis (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 602City of Ferndale v. Friberg (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 611State v. Adams (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 621Valley View Industrial Park v. City of Redmond (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 662Caminiti v. Boyle (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 679Mahoney v. Shinpoch (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 693Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center v. Holman (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 721Hamilton v. Farmers Insurance Co. (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 735Nordstrom, Inc. v. Tampourlos (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 745State v. Anderson (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 754Cosro, Inc. v. Liquor Control Board (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 761Reichelt v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 778Burns v. Miller (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 785Beckmann v. Spokane Transit Authority (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 791State v. Quiroz (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 801Kitsap County v. State (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 807Campbell v. ITE Imperial Corp. (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 836Vadheim v. Continental Insurance (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 848State v. Ollens (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 856Motel v. Department of Labor & Industries (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 861Whitney v. Buckner (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 872Marine Power & Equipment Co. v. Department of Transportation (1987)
- 107 Wash. 2d 882State v. Coates (1987)