119 Wash. 2d
Volume 119 — Washington Reports, Second Series
56 opinions
- 119 Wash. 2d 1Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 34Robinson v. City of Seattle (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 91Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 129Biggs v. Vail (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 138State v. Sims (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 143State v. Johnson (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 151Barnett v. Hicks (1992)
<bold>[1] Arbitration — Judicial Review — Appellate Review — Grounds —</bold> <bold>Authority.</bold> Appellate review of an issue submitted to arbitration under RCW 7.04 is strictly limited to the grounds set forth in RCW 7.04.160 and .170.<page_number>Page 152</page_number> <bold>[2] Appeal — Review — Scope — Duty of Appellate Court.</bold> An appellate court has the duty to determine the extent of review whether or not that issue is raised by the parties. <bold>[3] Arbitration — Judicial Review — Appellate Review — Scope —</bold> <bold>Merits of Case.</bold> Appellate review of an arbitration award does not include review of the merits of the case. <bold>[4] Arbitration — Nature of Proceeding — Stipulation — Effect.</bold> A stipulation that the proceedings did not constitute arbitration when the record indicates that the dispute was in fact determined by arbitration will not be effective. <bold>[5] Action — Nature — Statutory Action — Intent — Stipulation —</bold> <bold>Effect.</bold> Parties to a dispute cannot agree to proceed under the dictates of one statute and then later state that they intended to proceed under another. <bold>[6] Arbitration — Nature of Proceeding — Determination —</bold> <bold>Factors.</bold> In determining whether a proceeding is properly classified as arbitration subject to the procedures set forth in RCW 7.04 or a reference hearing subject to the procedures set forth in RCW 4.48, a court may consider references in the record, whether the proceeding was intended to be confidential, and whether the parties intended that the record be sealed. <bold>[7] Courts — Jurisdiction — Stipulation — Effect.</bold> Parties to a dispute cannot stipulate to jurisdiction. <bold>[8] Appeal — Review — Scope — Agreement To Limit — Effect.</bold> Parties to a dispute cannot by agreement create their own boundaries of judicial review. <bold>[9] Arbitration — Judicial Review — Appellate Review — Scope —</bold> <bold>Stipulation — Effect.</bold> The nature and scope of appellate review of an arbitrator's decision cannot be stipulated to by the parties to the dispute; appellate review is governed by RCW 7.04.150-.170.
- 119 Wash. 2d 167State v. Johnson (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 178Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Department (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 192State v. Salinas (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 204State v. Speaks (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 210Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc. (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 229State v. Hastings (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 247State v. Stearns (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 251Hizey v. Carpenter (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 273Vaughn v. Chung (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 284State v. Handburgh (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 294State v. Ortiz (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 334Touchet Valley Grain Growers, Inc. v. Opp & Seibold General Construction, Inc. (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 357Bohn v. Cody (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 369In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Immelt (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 373City of Bellevue v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1604 (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 385State v. Smith (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 390State v. Chadderton (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 401State v. Strauss (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 423Bird-Johnson Corp. v. Dana Corp. (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 434Cossel v. Skagit County (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 438In Re the Marriage of Kraft (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 452In Re F.D. Processing, Inc. (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 464Neah Bay Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Fisheries (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 484Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 504City of Pasco v. Public Employment Relations Commission (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 513State v. Howell (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 519Conard v. University of Washington (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 538State v. Perrone (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 563State v. Zakel (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 572State v. Onefrey (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 578State v. Thornton (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 584Peerless Food Products, Inc. v. State (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 597Matter of Personal Restraint of Farmer (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 600Matter of Welfare of Key (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 623City of Auburn v. Brooke (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 640Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co. v. Department of Ecology (1992)
<bold>[1] Declaratory Judgment — Review — Applicable Rules.</bold> A declaratory judgment is reviewed pursuant to the same rules as any other appeal. <bold>[2] Judgment — Summary Judgment — Review — In General.</bold> An appellate court reviewing a summary judgment engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. It considers the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists. If no such issue exists, and reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion from the evidence, the moving party is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law. <bold>[3] Administrative Law — Rules — What Constitutes — "Of General</bold> <bold>Applicability".</bold> An administrative standard satisfies the "of general applicability" element of the definition of a "rule" set forth in RCW <cross_reference>34.05.010</cross_reference>(15) if it applies uniformly to all parties who comprise a specific class.
- 119 Wash. 2d 650Rones v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 657State v. Davis (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 667Lewis v. Bours (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 675State v. Smith (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 685State v. Reding (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 697Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific v. Department of Transportation (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 711State v. Belgarde (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 724McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 738Washington Economic Development Finance Authority v. Grimm (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 761Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Department of Ecology (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 780Franz v. Lance (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 783Foley v. Department of Fisheries (1992)
- 119 Wash. 2d 1002State v. McFadden (1992)